- «c 

- ccc 
«rc 

:«ccc: 

• : c?:c 

- CC 
^CCC 



^C c c 

ES#c: <c cc 

c c c cc 



dec c 

• c c c c 
dc c c 
' CC c c 
c c c c 

^£C« 

CKC 
"*CCCC". 



•<§<r 



::-«g|E 



^^^^ ^ ^ r ^^^^ 



. cc 
. cc 
. cc 
cc: 
c< 

He 



X c C 

crc 
tec: 



CC<r 
<Cc 
ccc ■ 
ccc 
cc< 
CCC 

cc 
ccc 
cc C 
CC c 
CC 

C€C C 



C( C . < CSC 
«CCCd < cc 
C c - cc 

C c < cc 

mmc:*. cc 

<£C<T ' CC 
CtC cc 
«tscc:; cc: 
^c 

«trc<c: o cccl 
c«:c cgc 
ccc c&c 
ccc^c 
<: < <q esc. 

I" cc ' 



III 

c 

- <C (j 

<Tcc< 
<Scc 
<ccC 

<oxC 

- c:«c 
crcc 
c c •: 
<m . 

cC< * 

c« : 
c.cc<3 



ccx c^s^ci; < 

CC <^E^C<tC~; < 
CC ^^^^^ c 

<£•• JlllllE^^cl 



ccc c ccc 

<XCCCCC- 

cjC<cl cccc 

^BESOCI CCCC 
«?^d ocr^ <^<n<c< 

c<Z4cr^^c 
c<z<d: cc cccc ■ 



cdcCC 



^^^^^^ 
55: ctcS 



^^^Kc^O 

»?8 «r^<«ilfcc«rrc 



<fC < < 

C C 0Ci O 

c: <ac: .ci 
^pvc o:; jc 

ET C C ^ 

Esi 

o c ^ 
c 



■9/ 



f i/ 



REVIEW 

OF 

MR. WHITMAN'S DISCOURSE 

ON - ' - 

DENYING THE LORD JESUS. 



REVIEW 



REV. MR. WHITMANS DISCOURSE, 



PREACHED BEFORE THE 



SECOND RELIGIOUS SOCIETY 



IN WALTHAM. 



Monton: 

T. R. MARVIN, PRINTER, 32, CONGRESS STREET. 

1827, 



! 



REVIEW. 



A Discourse on Denying the Lord Jesus, by Bernard Whitman? 
of Waltham, from Matthew, x. 33, published by the request of 
the Second Religious Society in Waltham. pp. 47. 

" It is," says an able writer, "the result either of imperfection 
in the reasoning powers, or of ignorance concerning the main 
subject in dispute, or of design and artifice in the controversialist, 
that subjects on which there is no debate are often gravely proved 
or asserted, or that the very point which is the grand source of 
contention is constantly assumed." Such, I am sorry to say, is a 
grand fault which pervades the sermon under review. But where 
important truth is concerned, and remembering that we are re- 
quired " to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," 
delicacy of feeling should not prevent our exposing sophistry and 
false assertions, though such exposure have an unfavorable bearing 
upon the reasoning powers, or motives of a controversialist. Even 
this exposure, however, should be made in the spirit of love. " The 
servant of the Lord must not strive ; but be gentle unto all men, 
apt to teach, patient ; in meekness instructing those that oppose 
themselves." Nothing but a conviction that truth is important, 
and that this sermon contains fatal — soul destroying errors, — a 
conviction* strengthened and confirmed by a repeated perusal and 
careful comparison with the Scriptures, would have induced us to 
undertake this review. All reproachful epithets and groundless 
assertions will be avoided, for it is truth only, with which we are 
concerned. We are aware, however, that we are entering upon 
dangerous ground, for in the sermon, there are many expressions 
highly fitted to irritate and call forth feelings, opposite to those 
which, as professing Christians, we are bound, and ever desire to 
exercise. But we hope to be restrained from imbibing the same 
spirit. If we are pronounced so weak that we cannot be " an- 
swerable for our opinions," 4 because we dissent from his con- 
clusions,' — if we are called " senseless," 4 because we worship a 
Saviour who was slain,' — and are held up as objects which make 



4 



him " unspeakably ashamed" because we do not agree with him 
in renouncing as spurious, some disputed passages of the sacred 
text, we will yet refrain from using such reproachful language ; for 
it is, to say the least, repugnant to the legitimate ends of contro- 
versy — but poorly fitted to elicit truth, or excite the feelings of 
christian forbearance and kindness. But if a person neither pro- 
fesses nor manifests any regard to the rights and feelings of those 
who differ from him, he must not complain if we expose and dis- 
approve his conduct. A late Unitarian writer says, " We can 
neither reconcile it to justice nor reason, nor to christian benevo- 
lence, forbearance or humility, that those who disbelieve the 
doctrine of the supreme divinity of Christ are to be excluded from 
the name and hope of Christians. We know that we have no 
right to pronounce the judgments of God, and that a mere differ- 
ence of opinion should make no difference in our feelings toward 
one another." This has long been the language of Unitarians, 
and they have often been complained of, for talking so much about 
charity, and for manifesting so little. But we have no complaint 
of this kind to make of anything we find in this sermon. The 
author is consistent throughout with himself. He makes no pro- 
fessions of charity, and he manifests none. He denounces all 
who believe in the supreme divinity of Christ, and who pay him 
divine honors, as either " ignorant and senseless," or as deniers of 
the Lord Jesus, and consequently carrying out the sentiment of his 
text, pronounces the judgment of Christ upon them, and excludes 
them from the name and the hopes of the Christian. 

And though the consequences of his positions and conclusions 
are so solemn in their bearings upon all those who differ from him, 
and according to his views, " deny the Lord Jesus" yet we have 
seldom met with a sermon which is so positive. If he had been 
an aged divine, and were writing upon a plain and undisputed 
subject, we should not have expected more unbounded confidence 
in his own assertions and conclusions. We could not but feel a 
little surprised at this, especially as the substance of all his argu- 
ments had been so repeatedly before the public, and as often 
answered by men of distinguished intellect and reputation. He 
seems, however, to suppose that his arguments are so forcible, and 
above all exception, that they cannot be overthrown. For he 
asks, after having summed up his conclusions, " Now is there any 
possible way in which you can overthrow these conclusions ?" 
And answers, " You will attempt the work in but one manner," 
and then adds, that for the support of this only manner in which 
you can overthrow these my conclusions, there is " not a word, 
not even a hint in the whole Bible." Now we shall not answer 
this by an opposite assertion, and say that the Scriptures are full 
of proofs against his conclusions, for our readers have the Bible in 
their hands, and we are willing to leave them to weigh the argu- 



5 



ments we shall adduce, and to judge for themselves, whether 
there is anything in the Bible to overthrow his conclusions, or to 
support our own. We are perhaps the more averse to confident 
assertions, from a remembrance of an old remark, that " the ex- 
treme confidence of assertions is often in the inverse ratio of the 
strength of the argument." 

If by a fair examination of the sermon, his proofs should be 
found to rest upon precarious assumptions, misconstrued and mis- 
applied passages — if in some cases his conclusions should be 
defeated by his own arguments, and especially if it should appear 
that he has not supported his conclusions against arguments and 
objections which are before the public yet unanswered, it may 
appear strange, to some at least, that he should, so early, appear 
before the public with such extreme confidence. 

The sermon is founded on Matt. x. 33. Whosoever shall deny 
me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in 
heaven. 

This text is truly a solemn one. It contains a caution, accom- 
panied with a sanction. It is the declaration of a truth, viz. : that 
those who deny Christ here will be denied by Christ hereafter. It 
is the plain and unequivocal declaration of the Saviour that, who- 
soever (every one who) shall deny him before men, him will he 
deny before his Father in heaven. If then, it can be shown who 
the deniers of Christ here alluded to are, it follows inevitably, that 
they will (continuing the same) be denied by Christ in another 
world. And everything said from this text, by way of showing 
who denies Christ, is utterly irrelative, unless we admit the conse- 
quence that the same will be denied by Christ. It was very 
natural, in order that the text might be made practical, to show in 
the first place how, or in what ivays, we may deny Christ, and 
then each individual could make the application, and if guilty, feel 
his danger of being denied by Christ at the judgment. And in his 
introduction, Mr. Whitman very justly says, " You may deny the 
Lord Jesus in two different w r ays, either in word or in deed. If 
you contradict his declarations you deny him in word. If you 
disobey his commands you deny him in deed." He then notices 
three instances of denying Christ, two of the first kind, — denying 
him in word, and one of the last, — denying him in deed. The 

1. Was making him God. 

2. Was making him equal with God. 

3. Was worshipping him as God. 

Under the second kind of denying the Lord Jesus, (in deed,) we 
expected to hear something said about a practical disregard of his 
institutions, and a flagrant transgression of his laws, for he had said, 
if you disobey his commands you deny him in deed ; but the only 
way of denying him in deed which he instances is, that of wor- 
shipping him as God. It has heretofore been customary for 



6 



Unitarians to speak of opinions as harmless, or non-essential, and 
to represent unholy living, or disobedience to the moral precepts 
of Christ, as the only thing which would expose any one to his 
final displeasure. But Mr. W. in showing who denied Christ, and 
of consequence, carrying out the sentiment of his text, who would 
finally be denied by Christ, wholly omits all disobedience to the 
precepts of Christ, and so far as we can learn from the sermon, 
places all the guilt of denial, in wrong views of Christ's character, 
and in worshipping him under the influence of those views ! How- 
ever immoral and wicked in conduct, nothing is said to show that 
such deny Christ. As though the precepts and commands of 
Christ related to nothing else, only one way is mentioned in which 
he may be denied practically, and that is, by worshipping him as 
God ! Nobody is included in his description of the deniers of the 
Lord Jesus, but Trinitarians, as such, without any regard to their 
moral character ! Perhaps Mr. W. will say that his limits in a 
single sermon would admit of noticing only some of the ways in 
which Christ is denied. But when considering his limits, in making 
his plan, from the numerous ways in which Christ might be denied 
practically, he would of course take those which were the most 
prominent, and dangerous, and omit those of less moment. Unless 
a man had a party object in view, common sense would dictate 
this course. In the second way of denying Christ, he might have 
noticed many instances which, without any change of the transla- 
tion, or unnatural construction, would have been sufficiently obvious 
to all, as plain cases of denying the Lord Jesus. He might have 
noticed Judas, the crucifiers of Christ, those who contrary to all 
his moral precepts live ungodly lives, and especially the case of 
false teachers, as particularly mentioned in 2 Peter, ii. 1, and in 
Jude, iv. but in making his selection, he takes only one case, and 
that of the beloved disciple John. 

By the small mistake of changing the angel for Jesus, he makes 
John guilty of worshipping Christ contrary to his command, and 
consequently of denying him. This we shall notice hereafter. 
We mention it now, only to show what a singular selection he made. 
In showing who those were that practically denied Christ, and 
from a text too, which assured him that whosoever denied Christ 
here, should be denied by Christ in heaven, he takes John, and 
after perverting the Scripture, as we shall show hereafter, in order 
to make it answer his purpose, he considers him as a denier of 
Christ, while he omits the mention of Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, 
and the band of soldiers, false teachers, the profane, the immoral, 
and ungodly sinners of all descriptions. Mr. Whitman then obvi- 
ously considers worshipping Christ as among the highest degrees 
of wickedness, as the most prominent way (for it is the only one 
he notices) of denying Christ in deed. And on his own princi- 
ples, we will not say he is inconsistent. For if Christ be only a 



7 



man, it is gross' idolatry to worship him ; and no idolater shall en- 
ter the kingdom of heaven. 

But perhaps Mr. W. will say all his fears were on the suppo- 
sition of ignorance, for he said in the beginning of his sermon, 
" No sincere Christian would knowingly deny the Lord Jesus," 
and at the close he says, " if your guilt be unintentional, pardon 
will be granted." It seems, then, if we bring the beginning and 
close of the sermon together, it resolves itself into this, — As wor- 
shipping Christ is the most prominent way of denying him, no 
sincere Christian will be guilty of knowingly worshipping him. 
He will never be guilty of knowingly making him God, or equal 
with God, or of worshipping him as God. If he does it, it must 
be unawares — not knowing it. But if a sincere Christian happen 
to fall into it unawares, or in his own words, " if your guilt be unin- 
tentional, pardon will be granted." But what need of pardon ? 
There is no guilt in an unintentional act. A person, in our view of 
ethicks, is no more guilty for an act done without his knowledge 
and intention, than he is for the involuntary contraction of a nerve. 
Why then this long sermon ? Why should the author say, " I am 
compelled to fear we are in great danger of unintentionally deny- 
ing the Lord Jesus ?" Did he not know there was no sin in that 
which was unintentional, or as he himself says, 4 it will be par- 
doned' ? 

Why then should he say, " Knowing my accountableness to my 
heavenly Father, and solemnly impressed with the worth of im- 
mortal souls, I have selected this infinitely important subject for 
our present consideration" ? 

We must detain the reader one moment longer on this point. No 
sincere Christian, he says, will deny Christ, except it be igno- 
rantly, and all who do it in this way will be pardoned. Now the 
text which he is explaining and enforcing is, " Whosoever shall 
deny me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is 
in heaven." From this text, he, in the first place, expresses his 
solemn fears that some may deny Christ ignorantly, and gives this 
as the reason of his writing, and then at the close tells us that all 
who deny him unintentionally will be pardoned. 

" Whosoever shall deny me before men." Who are they f 
Those who ignorantly make him God, or equal with God, or wor- 
ship him as God, and all these, because they do it ignorantly, will 
be pardoned. The text then should read thus. Whosoever shall 
deny me before men shall be pardoned. 

There is one other construction which the language of the ser- 
mon will bear, that is, to consider those who deny Christ as doing 
{^intentionally, and thus exclude them from being sincere Chris- 
tians. And from some other expressions in the sermon, we should 
judge this is the ground the author designs to take. 

" No sincere Christian on earth would knowingly deny the 



8 



Lord Jesus." After saying in the closing paragraph of his sermon 
that " if your guilt be unintentional, pardon will be granted," he 
adds, " but if caused by neglect or wilfulness, deplorable must be 
your condition." It seems from the contrast of the two parts of 
the sentence, that by neglect or wilfulness the writer means, inten- 
tionally or designedly, in opposition to unintentionally. He has 
made unintentional an emphatic word, on the ground of which 
pardon will be granted, of course its opposite, intentional, would 
express his meaning in the other and opposite clause. From this 
sentence, taken in connexion with the rest of the sermon, it ap- 
pears to be the author's opinion that all who intentionally make 
Christ God, or equal with God, or worship him as God, " are in a 
deplorable situation," for they knowingly deny Christ, and conse- 
quently are not sincere Christians. In this shape the text may 
stand as it is, and the Jast half may be applied, — them will Christ 
deny before his Father in heaven. And the fact is, that those 
against whom the sermon seems designed to bear,, do not, do what 
he calls denying Christ, ignorantly. They know that they make 
him God, and they design to worship him as God. They are 
then denied both the name and the hopes of sincere Christians. 
But we would not say that the author means this. There is, in- 
deed, such looseness in his style of writing, particularly in the use 
of single words, that we are at a loss to know which ground of the 
two, he means to stand upon — whether he means to consider all 
Trinitarians, in all past, and at the present time, (for according to 
him they have all denied Christ,) so " ignorant and senseless" as 
that they have not known what they were about, and may, there- 
fore, be considered sincere Christians who will be pardoned on the 
ground of their sins being unintentional ; or whether he means to 
denounce them all as wicked idolators, and not worthy the Chris- 
tian name, and as exposed to the final denunciation of the Judge 
of the world. We should presume, from some other expressions 
in the sermon, that the latter was his opinion. For it is only on 
this ground, that we can see any force in his reason for selecting 
this subject, viz. ' his solemn impression of the worth of immortal 
souls.' If denying Christ endangers the soul, and he sincerely 
believes that " making Christ God, or worshipping him as God," 
is denying him, then he believes that Trinitarians are in danger of 
loosing their souls, and his reason for writing is forcible. It is 
only on this ground, that he can apply the last clause of his text. 
And moreover he has said, on page 36, " If you worship Jesus as 
God, you disobey the first great command, and have another God 
besides your heavenly Father." 

' But it is immaterial with us which of the nvo grounds he takes, 
whether he considers us as a " sunsel^ss" stupid race of creatures, 
or whether he excludes from us the iiaine and the hope of the sin- 
cere Christian. If he take the f, rmer, we shall not dispute his 



9 



ground for a moment, if the latter, we rejoice that we stand amena- 
ble to a higher tribunal. 

Having taken this general view of this sermon, which assumes 
such high ground, I shall now proceed to consider the arguments 
by which the author arrives at his conclusions. 

Before entering upon this part of the examination, I would re- 
mark that the Bible is our standard, and that this must be received 
as it stands, and interpreted according to the common laws of 
language, without violating the obvious principles of grammatical 
interpretation for the sake of favoring any party views. Our simple 
inquiry is, what sentiment does the language of this or that passage 
convey, without violence or perversion. In the words of a distin- 
guished biblical critic, " If I put a gloss upon any passage which 
represents it as conveying a meaning different from that which the 
laws of interpretation would assign it ; I may deceive others, or I 
may serve the interests of a party, but I violate the reason which 
God has given me by such conduct, and act a part dishonest, and 
unworthy of an inquirer after truth." 

In discussing religious subjects it should never be forgotten, that 
we are not contending for victory, but are inquiring for eternal 
truth, in which all are alike concerned. Such discussions, there- 
fore, should be manly and respectful. Then, the doctrines of true 
religion have nothing to fear, for candid investigation, will only 
evince more clearly their truth, their excellence, and their unrival- 
led tendency, to promote the holiness and happiness of men. To 
say, that those who dissent from us are " ignorant and senseless," 
is an unworthy artifice, in which the public have no concern, and 
which, if it does not betray the weakness of a cause, always, and 
justly, degrades him who in this way enters upon its defence. 

Whether the sermon before us bears internal marks of zeal to 
serve a party, such as an attorney would manifest in pleading the 
cause of his client ; or a humble, impartial love for truth, such as 
a trembling conscientious Christian, who feels that if he adds to, or 
takes from, the sacred word, his own name will be taken from the 
Lamb's book of life, would exercise, we shall leave for the candid 
to judge. 

Our limits will not permit us to go through particularly the whole 
sermon, for to bring all the proofs from Moses and the prophets, 
Christ and the apostles, which, in our estimation, go to show the 
fallacy of his assumptions and expositions, would require a large 
volume instead of a small pamphlet. The examination of a part 
however, will involve principles, the application of which will be 
easy to the whole. ' 

Mr W.'s first kind of deiffirg the Lord Jesus is in word. The 
first example he selects is thai cf the Jews accusing Jesus of 
" making himself God." " In ^ doing," he says, " they contra- 
2 



10 



dieted his declarations, and consequently denied the Lord Jesus." 
The instance referred to is John, x. 23 — 37. Some able writers 
have supposed that Christ here in repelling the force of their accu- 
sations could not be considered as either renouncing or asserting 
his proper divinity, but as defending his claims to the son-ship.* 
We are inclined to adopt this opinion. But if we suppose he in- 
tends to do either, we must suppose he intends to assert his real 
divinity, and not as Mr. W. supposes to deny it. Mr. W. in his 
quotation left out the following verse, " but if I do, (the works of 
my Father,) though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye 
may know and believe, that the Father is in me and I in him." 
This essentially alters the case. On this and the verse preceding, 
Dr. Adam Clarke has the following comment. " I desire you to 
believe only on the evidence of my works. If I do not do such 
works as God only can perform, then believe me not. Though ye 
do not now credit what I have said to you, yet consider my works, 
and then ye will see, that these w r orks prove that I am in the Fa- 
ther and the Father in me, and consequently that I and the Father 
are one. This seems to be the force of our Lord's argument ; and 
every one must see and feel that it is conclusive." Now was it 
not natural for the Jews, if they understood his claim of sonship to 
be a claim of equality with his Father, to understand him as mean- 
ing to confirm this claim. Jesus seems to use the argumentum ad 
hominem, and represents it as surprising that they who know that 
in their Scriptures even men were called gods, should complain, 
when he, w r ho was justly entitled to this appellation according to all 
the predictions concerning him, should call himself the Son of God. f 
As they would not believe his words, he appeals to their senses, 
and says, " If I do not the works of my Father believe me not, 
but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye 
may know and believe, that the Father is in me and I in him," 
as much as to say, 1 do not wish you to believe on my bare asser- 
tion, but I will give a visible proof of my divine power, that you 
may no longer have reason to doubt, but that ye may know and 
believe, that the Father is in me and I in him" Does not this 
look like making his claims good against their accusations of blas- 
phemy ? Does it not look like making his title good to all that he 
had claimed ? 

Should we place ourselves in their circumstances, could we un- 
derstand him otherwise, than as meaning to confirm his former as- 
sertion that, " he and his Father are one." The Jews did under- 
stand him so, and therefore sought again to take him. Now is it 
not strange, on the supposition of Mr. W. that he intended expli- 
citly to deny their charge, that he did not do it in plain language, es- 

* See Stuart's Letters, pp. 145 — 148, 2d Edition. See Stuart's Letters to Dr. Miller, pp. 
146—149. 8vo. 

t See Ps. ii. 7, 12. Isa. ix. 6. vii. 14. Compared with John, i. 1, 2 ; 14. Rom. ix. 5. 
Phil. ii. 6—8, &c. 



II 



pecially, is it not strange, that he used language the natural, if not 
necessary construction of which, would confirm their impressions ? 
And is it not, if possible, more strange, that when he saw their im- 
pressions had been confirmed, he should not have contradicted it, in 
terms so explicit, as effectually to remove it from their minds ? On 
this occasion to which Mr. W. appeals with so much confidence, 
whatever explanation we may give to the language of his answer to 
their charge, the fact is clear, that it was language which did not re- 
move the impression made by his former language, that he meant to 
make himself God. And we take the fact alone, that his answer did 
not remove, but confirmed their impression that he meant to make 
himself one with God. And can we suppose, that if they were 
mistaken, he would not have corrected them in unambiguous and 
undeniable terms? 

Am I conversing with a captious enemy, should I not be careful 
to use language which would not be misunderstood, and if misun- 
derstood, and the consequence of this misunderstanding should con- 
firm him in a dangerous error, should I not immediately explain 
myself, and remove the false impression ? What then shall we think 
of Christ, if, as Mr. W. supposes, he intended to deny their charge ? 
Why did he do it in language which naturally tended to strengthen 
their impressions? And especially when he saw that he had only con- 
firmed them, why did he not either explain his words, or affirm. 
plainly that they misunderstood him ? But no, in this and in nume- 
rous other similar cases, he never undeceived them, but left them to 
stone him and crucify him for blasphemy, making himself equal 
with God. Well has it been asked, " if Christ is a mere creature, 
would he not have hastened to disclaim the imputation, in language 
of which the meaning could not be mistaken, and would he not have 
sedulously shunned every form of speech, and every mode of con- 
duct, that could possibly countenance a supposition so inexpressibly 
shocking to his mind ?"* 
... The next heads of the sermon are as follows, 

" 2. If you say that Jesus is God, you contradict the declarations of Moses and 
the Prophets. 

3. If you say Jesus is God, you contradict his own declarations. 

4. If you say that Jesus is God, you contradict the declarations of the apostles. 

5. If you say that Jesus is God, you contradict all the remarkable facts of his his- 
tory." 

We class these heads together for the sake of brevity, as the nature 
of the argument is the same under each. Through all of them,, 
the sophism is what logicians call, " Petitio principii," a supposition 
or assumption of what is not granted." It assumes that Jesus being 
anointed, or sent by God, or called the son of God, is clear proof 
that he is not God, And assuming this, he has only to collect 
those passages which relate to his human or official character, and 
they are so many proofs against his divinity, They are indeed 

* See Wardlaw's Reply to Yates, p. 130. 



12 



proofs of his humanity, yea of his official inferiority, which nobody 
questions, but they leave the main question, touching his equal at- 
tributes, just where they found it. He can indeed produce his 
hundred passages in which Christ is declared inferior to the Father, or 
as sent by the Father, or as being son of the Father, and if they were 
multiplied to thousands they would prove nothing in point, for on 
the Trinitarian hypothesis, these all are consistent with the hun- 
dreds of other passages which call him God, and clothe him with 
divine attributes and honors. ' But Mr. W. does not seem to think 
it incumbent on him to meet fairly the main question, but argues 
on, with all confidence in the credulity of his readers, leaving those 
who are unacquainted with the controversy to wonder what Trini- 
tarians make of these passages, or whether they have not overlook- 
ed them altogether.' But as we shall soon come to another chain 
of subdivisions, through the whole of which there is merely a repe- 
tition of the same argument, viz. " he is son of God and therefore 
cannot be equal with God, the conclusion being a bare assumption, 
not an inference from the premises, I shall, for the present, leave 
this, and pass on. Mr. W. says, 

" Perhaps you will tell me, that the titles, attributes, offices, works and words of 
Jesus seem to imply that he is God. Let us now attend to these particulars." 

Under the first of these particulars, he notices several passages 
in which he says, " the name of God seems, at first view, to be ap- 
plied to Jesus." Under this remark he notices the first of John. 
" In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and 
the word was God." 

" At first sight, you might think the word meant the son. But you will be con- 
vinced that this is impossible, if you will put son in the place of word, and Father 
or Father and holy spirit, in the room of God. In the first instance, it will read — 
In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the Father, and the son was 
the Father. To say the son was the Father, is false and absurd. Try the other 
method. In the beginning was the son, and the son was with the Father and holy 
spirit, and the son was the Father and holy spirit. This is still worse. To say the 
son was the Father and the holy spirit, is not only false and absurd, but nonsensical. 
You must therefore conclude the word cannot mean the son in any sense." 

This is indeed nonsensical. But to whom is it to be ascribed ? 
We shall leave the reader to judge with how much reason Mr. W. 
gave this paragraph such an air of self-complacency and triumph. 
To us it appears that the nonsense has arisen from a loose and 
indefinite use of words. He uses the word Father instead of 
God, without bearing in mind that when the word Father is used 
in relation to the Trinity, or as the first person, it does not mean 
exactly the same as when used to express the supreme Being. 
We sometimes call God our Father, — the Father of all, meaning 
the parent of the universe, or the supreme God. We also speak 
of the Father, as the Father of the Son Christ Jesus. Though we 
do not derogate from the divinity of the Father, yet it is readily 
perceived that the term is not so extensive in this latter, as in the 



13 



former sense. It should be considered that the term God is not 
always synonymous with Father. " It is sometimes used to de- 
note the Godhead generally, without any particular reference to the 
distinction of persons and sometimes it means God as Father of 
the Lord Jesus Christ.* Trinitarians do not suppose that the 
words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are synonymous and converti- 
ble terms, but so far from this that the doctrine of the Trinity 
supposes a distinction. Nor does the doctrine suppose that either 
the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, is the supreme God separate from 
the other tw T o. But the doctrine is, that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, although personally distinct, are in essence one. 
Each of them is God, because possessed of the attributes and per- 
fections of the Godhead, but each of them is not God separately 
and exclusively of the other. Does Mr. W. here say, that neither 
of them alone then can be called God. The answer is, that 
neither of them is alone. While we maintain the above distinction 
of persons, we also believe there is a sense in which, they are not, 
and cannot be separate. They are one. And if there be a sense 
in which they are one, then there is a sense in which, what is true 
of them united, is true of each. They are, in union, the supreme 
God. Each of them, therefore, being in essence one with the 
others, is truly divine. f Many passages can be explained only on 
the ground of this distinction, and yet this union. J 

In many cases the term God, does mean, God as Father, in 
many other cases, it is a description of divine being — of the divinity 
without reference to the distinction of Father. The most chari- 
table conclusion is, that Mr. W.'s loose and indefinite use of words 
led him to all this confusion. " At first sight," he says, " you 
might think the word (Logos) meant Son." But we do not sup- 
pose that the Logos meant Son, but it meant that which became 
Son. " The word was made flesh." Luke i. 35. From what 
has now been said, it will be readily seen that Mr. Whitman's ar- 
gument here is without foundation. The terms are not convertible 
terms, and therefore his reductio ad absurdum is itself the absurdity. 
All that it proves is, that the Son is not the Father ; and as though 
he supposed some one would doubt this, and as though he would 
demonstrate, that his not being the Father is proof that he cannot 
be divine, thus assuming again the main thing in dispute, he brings 
in his favorite argument, which seems through the sermon to be the 
amount of all his resources ; viz. 

" Jesus is the Christ the son of God. If he is the Christ or anointed, he can be no 
part of that God by whom he was anointed, and if he was the son of God, he could 
not be the God and Father on whom he was dependent for existence." 

Mr. W. next gives his definition of the word. (Logos.) " It 
means," says he, " the power of God considered as in action." 
As he has now given a definite meaning to the word, it will be fair 
* See Christian Magazine ; vol. 3 ; p. 267. t Ibid. p. 258. \ See John xiv. 8— 11. 



14 



to test it, by placing it instead of the word, and then it will read 
thus. In the beginning was the power of God considered as in 
action, and the power of God considered as in action was with 
God, and the power of God considered as in action was God. The 
same (power of God considered as in action) was in the beginning 
with God. All things were made by him, (the power of God con- 
sidered as in action.) In him was life, &c. And " the power of 
God considered as in action" was made flesh, and dwelt among 
lis, &c. We have taken his own definition, and therefore have treated 
him fairly. And whether it be " absurd " or " nonsensical," the 
reader will judge. To what class of men can you suppose that 
John would seriously say, that the power of God considered as in 
action, was with God. " What would be said of a man who should 
gravely assert that the power of Peter is with Peter ? And sup- 
pose he should add the power of Peter, is Peter." " I would ask 
whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to instruct us, that 
the attributes of a being are with that being, or what can be thought 
of the assertion, the power of God, is God himself. Understand 
the word God in any sense you please, if it mean supreme God ; 
then it reduces itself to this, either that one attribute is the su- 
preme God, or that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it 
mean an inferior God, then the power of God being an inferior 
God, implies that his other attributes are superior Gods."* Be- 
sides, if this attribute became flesh and dwelt among men in Christ, 
who is distinct for the Father, and has no oneness with the Fa- 
ther, according to Mr. W.'s own favorite mode of reasoning, the 
Father must, for the time being, have been bereft of his power, 
for this power became flesh and dwelt among men ! Besides again, 
what is gained by Mr. W. by considering the Logos, the power of 
God or any attribute of God, for on that ground, Christ was one of 
the attributes of God, and of course divine. 

We must detain the reader a moment longer on Mr. W.'s mode of 
treating this verse. We hope every one, who has the sermon at hand, 
will turn to the 14 and 15 pages, and see how slightly he passes 
over this verse and the immediate connexion. He leaves the con- 
nexion, and goes to the close of the book, and quotes a passage to 
prove that Jesus was Christ, the son of God. If the man felt him- 
self hard pressed for argument, as I apprehend evey man must, 
when attempting to make the first of John consistent with the Uni- 
tarian views of Christ, it would have been as well, for his intelligent 
readers at least, to have stopped short, as to have pressed in again 
the old assertion, viz. " Christ is the son of God," (which we all 
believe and which we believe too, to be perfectly consistent with 
his supreme divinity,) and then infer that the word (Logos) cannot 
mean anything divine, because it would make the apostle so in- 
consistent. 

* See Prof. Stuarts' Letters ; p. 60. 



15 



££ Yau cannot, he says, think the apostle so inconsistent as to suppose he would 
begin his history, by asserting that Jesus was God, and conclude, by saying he had 
composed his work to prove directly the contrary, even that Jesus was the anointed 
Son of God!" 

Did Mr. W. suppose that any of his readers were so "ignorant" 
as to have this imposed upon them for argument ; or could he him- 
self be so little acquainted with the controversy, as not to know 
that he was here again begging the main question ? Just in the 
same way he may prove that no Trinitarian writer ever meant to 
assert the deity of Christ, because in all their books, they have as- 
serted that he was the Son of God, yea even that he was the Son 
of man.* 

But as Mr. W. chooses to pass over the immediate connexion, 
we will now go back to it, for in the connexion the apostle used 
expressions which explain his meaning, and which, to our minds, 
confirm most fully the deity of the Logos. Immediately after say- 
ing, " The same (Logos) was in the beginning with God," he 
adds, " AH things were made by him, and without him was not 
anything made that was made." Here it is asserted that the word, 
is the creator of all things. Is he not then God ? Can any but 
God create ? When the word God is applied to inferior beings, 
the connexion always designates the meaning. Men or inferior 
beings are never called God simply. We read of " a god to Pha- 
raoh" ; we read, " I have said ye are gods, but ye shall die like 
men" Is a mistake possible here, the meaning is explained by 
the connexion. But the word (Logos) is called God simply, and 
that too in such connexion that the context, instead of furnishing us 
with reasons for understanding the word God in an inferior sense, 
as is usual when this designation is applied to inferior beings, has 
plainly and unequivocally taught us, that this God (the Logos) cre- 

*Mr. W.'s argument all the way is merely this, to oppose to those passages which clearly 
eontain the divinity of Christ, those which contain his humanity, but this does not meet the 
main question at all, for those who believe in his divinity, believe in his humanity also. 

In reference to this sophistry, an able English periodical has the following pertinent para- 
graph. 

" One half, on the most moderate compulation, of the reasonings, declamations, and witti- 
cisms of Lnitarian writers, would fall to the ground, were this stale but convenient artifice to 
be taken from them. To all the passages which declare the pre-existence and Deity of 
Christ, the Socinian has nothing to oppose, but other passages which declare his humanity, — 
a doctrine which he knoics that his opponent believes as firmly as himself, though he would 
insinuate the contrary. He knows, too, that the subordination of Christ, as mediator, to Him 
who sent him, his prophetical character as the Apostle of God, together with the necessary 
dependance of the efficacy of his work on the appointment, acceptance, and ratification of the 
Father, — points necessarily involved in the humanity of Christ, — are all acknowledged and 
firmly believed by Orthodox Christians ; nay more, that they are the familiar topics of unem- 
barrassed illustration in their pulpits. But then he says, there is a contradiction in all this. 
He may say so, if he chooses : but whose word have we for it ? " Doubtless ye are the people, 
and wisdom shall die with you. But we have understanding as well as you."' Do Orthodox 
Christians believe it as & contradiction 1 Did Bacon, or Boyle, or Pascal, or Leibntiz re- 
gard it as a contradiction? We do not appeal to them as authorities for the truth of the doc- 
trine, but we may call them in as testimonies to the fact, that such a belief is compatible with 
all that is comprehensive, and acute, and profound in the human intellect. And then we ask, 
where is the modesty, the integrity, the decency of our modern Unitarians in treating the doc- 
trine of our Lord's divinity as a palpable contradiction, and in sheltering themselves behind 
this supposed contradiction, in a systematic misrepresentation of the opinions of those who be- 
lieve in it, as if they denied that' He who was emphatically the Son of God, was also the 
Son ofjnan ? — Eclectic Review, 



16 



ated the universe. The question then is reduced to this simple 
state, Is he who created the universe, truly and properly divine ? 
Is he who spake and it was done, who commanded and it stood 
fast, who said let there be light and there was light, Is he God or 
man ? Can it be possible that John ascribed the creation of the 
world to any being but the true God only ? If so, then the works 
of creation can no longer prove the existence of God. The works 
of creation are an evidence of no higher being than their creator. 
Compare Gen. i. and Acts, xvii. 23 — 26, with John, i. 1 — 3, and 
10; Heb. i. 10 — 12; Col. i. 14 — 17, and then say is it possible 
to admit the rules of interpretation, and not admit that the apostle 
designed to assert that Christ is the Creator of the universe ? And 
if Creator, can we deny that he is truly divine ? Is not creative 
power the appropriate and peculiar attribute of the supreme God ? 
Does not the Old Testament abound with passages, which ascribe 
the work of creation to Jehovah alone ? 

The connexion then in John, i. explains the meaning of the 
" Word" or Logos, and shows that he was the creator of the 
world. " And the word was God." 

Will it be replied, that his power was delegated power ? Can the 
creation of the universe, then, be by delegation, by an inferior and 
subordinate being ? What then can be meant by omnipotence, om- 
niscience, and infinite wisdom being delegated ? For if the act of 
creation does not prove the being who created, to be omnipotent, 
omniscient, and alhvise, then what can prove a being possessed of 
these perfections ? and what evidence have we that there is a being 
of such perfections? Can God delegate these perfections? Can 
he delegate almighty power, and infinite wisdom, to a finite be- 
ing ? Does not the possession of attributes, which are the peculiar 
and distinguishing prerogative of the supreme God, prove that he is 
God ? The apostle John then throws much light upon the first 
verse, by the 3d and 10th verses, for by deciding the question that 
Christ did create the world, he has decided consequently, that he 
must be truly divine, and of course, the meaning of the phrase, he 
was God — God not in an inferior sense, but the very God who 
created the world. It were easy to produce many passages of the 
New Testament which ascribe the same works to Christ that are 
ascribed to God as his peculiar work, and in such connexion too, 
as to show that he is divine, and worthy of divine honors. As a 
specimen, we refer to John, v. 17 — 27. In these verses, he claims 
the honor of working as the Father. And on the ground of his 
works, it is here said, that all should honor him, even as they 
honor the Father. Now how could Mr. W. pass entirely over all 
these considerations, arising directly out of the connexion, and, in 
less than two small duodecimo pages, think to satisfy the candid 
and intelligent, that the Word, meant, not that which became flesh, 
(see 14th verse,) but " the power of God considered as in action ?" 



17 



When too, neither the definition of the term, according to any lex- 
icographer, nor the legitimate rules of interpretation will hear such 
a construction. What could he think of the intelligence of an 
audience, or of the readers, who would be satisfied with the super- 
ficial and sophistical manner, in which, he has treated this verse ? 

We must leave other considerations connected with this passage, for 
want of room, and will only add the testimony of two scholars of 
very distinguished merit. The learned Griesbach, on whose au- 
thority Mr. W, seems sometimes to depend, says, " That passage 
in particular, John i. 1 — 3, is so clear, and so much above all ex- 
ception, that it never can be overthrown, and wrested from the de- 
fenders of the truth, by the daring attempts of either commentators 
or critics." President Dwight says, " in this passage of Scripture, 
St. John has not only declared that Christ is God ; but, to prevent 
any possible mistake, concerning what he meant by the word God,. 
has told us that he is co-eternal with God the Father, and that he 
is the Creator of every thing which exists. Were the Scriptures 
allowed to speak their own language, this single passage would de- 
cide the controversy ; for it is impossible to declare in stronger lan- 
guage, or more explicit, that Christ is God in the highest sense, 
originally and without derivation."* 

Mr. W. remarks on Acts, xx. 28, — " To feed the church of 
God, which he hath purchased with his ow r n blood. Of this he 
says, ' the word God should be changed into the word Lord, for 
this is the original word.' This is mere conjecture. Even Greis- 
bach allows that the common reading can be defended by argu- 
ments more or less specious. In some manuscripts it is God, in 
some Lord, in others, Lord and God. In the Greek of our Bible 
it is ®£0s, God. It, ( Seo^,) will not bear to be rendered Lord. 
" This reading, the church of God, is found at least in eight manu- 
scripts, is quoted by the ancient Fathers back to the Fourth cen- 
tury, and besides, it accords with the tenor of the Bible to speak of 
the church of God, rather than the church of the Lord. And 
it accords also, with the common language of the Bible, to call 
Jesus Christ God, — the mighty God — the great God, — the true 
God. The verse, therefore, as it stands in our translation, and in 
the original of the common version, precisely accords with the gen- 
eral language of the Bible. And any system, which, for its support, 
requires the alteration of this and so many other similar passages, 
should be suspected. "f 

' But as the verse now stands, he says, you could not be led into 
the error of supposing that the word God was applied to Jesus.'' 
And here again comes in his old assertion, by which any and every 
passage may be set aside. " God is a spirit. Jesus, he says, can- 
not be meant, for he had flesh and blood." Did he not remember, 

* Dwight's Theology, vol. 2, p. 61. 
_ t See Smith's View of the Trinity, 2d ed. p. 79. Also Dr. Adam Clark in loc, 

3 



18 



it is written, " the Word became flesh and dwelt among men." 
" Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the 
fleshy 

Romans, ix. 5. " Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as 
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over ail, God blessed 
forever." 

" At first sight," Mr. W. says, " you might think Paul declared that Jesus was 
God. But you will he convinced to the contrary, if you look at the sense and con- 
nexion. Paul said Christ was a regular descendant of the Israelites. This is plain. 
Now could he say in the same breath that this jewish descendant was God 
Almighty ? Can you believe the inspired apostle would utter such an absurdity ?" 

Now examine this argument, and see what it is, else than his 
same old assumption. " Christ was a regular descendant of the 
Israelites." This all Trinitarians believe. Now from this, Mr. W. 
infers that he cannot be God, " for this would make the apostle 
utter an absurdity." But this is the very thing in dispute, whether 
he who according to the flesh descended from the Israelites, is not 
also, the one who left the glory which he had with the Father before 
the world was, — whether he is not also, as the text affirms, God over 
all, blessed forever. The question is not whether, in Mr. W.'s esti- 
mation, this is an absurdity, but whether the Scriptures teach this. 
We must determine the meaning of the passage by the fair rules of 
interpreting language, and if this brings us to a result which will 
not harmonize with Mr. W.'s other preconceived notions, he must 
settle that with the apostle. We are inquiring what the apostle 
does plainly teach, and not whether he is absurd. 

Mr. W. has the following, which bears the semblance of argu- 
ment, but which, even, at " first sight," will not be taken for demon- 
stration. 

" Perhaps you will say that he spoke of his human nature, because he used the 
phrase — " as concerning the flesh." Very well. I take you on your own ground. 
In the verse but one above, Paul speaks of his " kinsmen according to the flesh." 
Had his kinsmen two natures ? If you cannot admit this, you cannot consistently 
admit that this phrase means any thing more than natural descent. In this last 
sense, and in no other, is it ever used by the sacred writers. Now you must con- 
clude, either that the apostle declared a regular descendant of the Jews was God 
Almighty — a shocking absurdity, or that he did not call Christ God." 

Here the writer seems very confident and well pleased with his 
argument. Whether he could be sincere, or whether it was an 
artful design to divert the attention of the hearer or reader it is not 
easy to say, " Very well. I will take you on your own ground," 
that is, will allow that the phrase, " concerning the flesh ," regards 
his human nature. He then says, " Paul speaks of his kinsmen ac- 
cording to the flesh. Had his kinsmen two natures?" Let every 
reader look at this sophistry. Did Mr. W. suppose that any body 
argued the two natures of Christ from the single phrase, " as con- 
cerning the flesh Christ came." It is- only his human nature here 
expressed, and his divine nature in the last clause, " who is over all, 
God Messed forever. His question then, from the phrase, Paul's 



19 



u kinsman according to the flesh" should have been, had they hu- 
man nature ? not, " have they two natures ?" And if afterwards 
he finds it said expressly concerning them, (the kinsmen of Paul,) as 
it is said of Christ, that they are God over all, — that they not only 
descended from David, but are the root of David — that they were 
not only the children of Abraham, but were before Abraham, then 
it will be in time to ask, had they two natures ? 

Admit that the phrase " concerning the flesh" means no more 
than natural descent, it still relates to his human nature, and in no 
way affects the argument. It only spreads over a little more sur- 
face, and allows him again, even the second time under the same 
head, to bring in his touchstone — his own assertion that " it is a 
shocking absurdity to suppose that he, who was a regular descen- 
dant of the Jews, could be also divine." The whole argument is, 
Christ cannot be divine because he is human ; as though he had 
forgotten that the question, between him and those he meant to re- 
fute, is, whether the passage asserts Christ's divinity as well as hu- 
manity. This is a very convenient way of surmounting difficulties. 
In this way a man might very briefly prove, or disprove, anything. 
He might prove that Christ is the offspring and not the root of 
David, by quoting those passages which relate to his lineal descent 
from David, and then assert that it is absurd to suppose that he 
who descended from David a thousand years after his death, was 
David's root or progenitor. " Can you believe the inspired apostle 
would utter such an absurdity ?" Or he may with the same des- 
patch prove the other side of the question, by quoting those passa- 
ges which speak of his pre-existence to David, which speak of his 
being before Abraham, and then infer that he cannot be the son of 
David. This would be a "shocking absurdity," for David in spirit 
called him Lord. How then can he be his son ? Who does not 
see that this way of arguing will cut short all theological disputes, 
and save a man the trouble of either proving or disproving any- 
thing ? Is a text quoted in proof of any doctrine, no matter how 
plainly and unequivocally the language, in its natural import, con- 
veys the doctrine ? It is only to assert that the doctrine is absurd, 
and we must therefore find some other meaning. All the plain 
declarations of the word of God may be thus forced into some fan- 
cied construction, and of what value is our revelation from heaven f 
Is not this a serious matter ? Will it answer thus to trifle with the 
word of God ? 

After in this way getting rid of the obvious meaning of the 
text, Mr. W. gives what he considers the true meaning. " Christ 
who is blessed by God — or God-blessed, over them all forever." 
This construction, which is from Dr. Taylor, has no foundation, 
and is resorted to for the obvious purpose of getting rid of the doc- 
trine which the passage naturally contains. " This text asserts the 
deity of Christ in terms as strong and unequivocal as language 



20 



could well afford. He is, " over all, God blessed forever. 11 Presi- 
dent D wight says, " This passage cannot be avoided by any means 
except a resolute denial." 

Doddridge says, " I must improve this memorable text as a proof 
of Christ's proper divinity, which I think the opposers of that 
doctrine have never been able, nor will ever be able to answer." 

Dr. Adam Clark says, " Here the apostle most distinctly points 
out the twofold nature of our Lord, his eternal Godhead and his 
humanity ; and all the transpositions of particles and alterations of 
points in the universe, will not explain away this doctrine. As this 
verse contains such an eminent proof of the deity of Christ, no 
wonder that the opposers of his divinity should strive with their 
utmost skill and cunning to destroy its force. And it must be truly 
painful to a mind that has nothing in view but truth, to see the 
mean and hypercritical methods used to elude the force of this text. 
And when we take other Scriptures into the account, where his es- 
sential Godhead is particularly expressed, such as Colos. i. 16, 17, 
for by him were all things created, he. and John, i. 3, we shall 
find that he is not God by investiture or office, but properly and 
essentially such, for it is impossible to convey in human language, 
to human apprehension, a more complete and finished display of 
what is essential to Godhead, indivisible from it, and incommunica- 
ble to any created nature, than what is contained in the above 
verses. And while these words are allowed to make a part of 
divine revelation, the essential Godhead of Jesus Christ will con- 
tinue to be a doctrine of that revelation. 

" I pass by the groundless and endless conjectures about reversing 
some of the particles, and placing points in different positions, as 
they have been all invented to get rid of the doctrine of Christ's 
divinity, which is so obviously acknowledged by the simple text : 
it is enough to state that there is no omission of these important 
words, in any Manuscript or Version yet discovered." 

Professor Stuart says, " In regard to this text, it may be re- 
marked first, that although Griesbach has filled his margin with 
conjectural and other readings, he attributes no considerable weight 
to any of them ; for all the Manuscripts of the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, which have been collated, contain the text as it stands ; as 
do all the ancient Versions, and nearly all the Fathers — But on 
no text has greater pains been bestowed, in order to devise an 
unusual construction and meaning." After noticing some of the 
conjectures, he adds, " Enough of amending the apostle's words 
by conjecture, without the authority of a single Manuscript or Ver- 
sion. — No Text, no Manuscript gives us a trace of either of these 
readings. To invent them, therefore, and force them upon the text; 
or to substitute a conjecture, which originated from theological 
speculation, against the plain and incontrovertible evidence of the 
integrity of the text ; what is it, but to introduce a principle fmida- 



21 



mentally subversive of all interpretation and criticism, and give up 
the Scriptures to be moulded to every man's own wishes ? 

" All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite incompe- 
tent to explain away the common rendering of the verse, and the 
meaning connected with it. On the other hand, we may ask ; 
How comes it that Christ, according to his human nature, is said to 
have descended from the Fathers ? What if I should affirm, that 
David, as to his human nature was descended from Jesse ? Would 
you not of course ask, what other nature had he, except human ? 
And such an inquiry forced upon us by the expression in question, 
the apostle has immediately answered ; as to his nature not human, 
he was supreme God, blessed forever, Amen. I do not argue that 
Christ is divine, merely from having the appellation God bestowed 
upon him. But if, who is over all, God, be not supreme God ; 
and if the antithesis in this verse do not require us to understand a 
divine nature here, then I must despair of ever discovering the 
sentiment of any text of Scripture, by using any or all the rules of 
exegesis."* 

Whether these men, and the host of others of equal celebrity, 
were all " ignorant," and therefore, " not answerable for their opin- 
ions ," or are not " sincere Christians," and in the ££ deplorable 
situation" of having denied the Lord Jesus before men, and whom 
he will deny before his Father in heaven, we shall leave for Mr. 
W. to determine. 

1 Tim. iii. 1 6. " God was manifest in the flesh." Mr. W. says, 
the word God should be changed to the words, he who. Without 
any hesitation, and without giving any authority, he says, this is 
the correct translation of the original Greek." We deny this. 
The Greek word is Osog, which is always translated God. Our 
translation then is right, and as it should be. " After all the con- 
troversy about the genuineness of this text," says Prof. Stuart, 
" it seems to me quite evident that it must be acknowledged ac- 
cording to the rules of criticism."]" " It appears to me a plain 
case that the authorities which Griesbach himself has adduced, 
would fairly lead to a decision different from his own, respecting 
the genuineness of the reading 0£og."J Besides, the thing as- 
serted in this verse is precisely the same with what John has said 
in his Gospel, i. 14. The word (who is called God, ver. 1,) was 
made flesh and dwelt among us. 

1 John, v. 20. " And we are in him that is true, even in his 
Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." The 
argument of Mr. W. is here again as elsewhere. 

c You cannot refer this to Jesus, for you would thus make him the true God,' and 
" you shut out the Father from being any part of God. This would be false and 
absurd." 

* See Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing, pp. 78—82. f See Macknigtit in loc. Also, Prof, 
Stuart's Sermon, from Matt, xviii. 20, pp. 29, 30. t Prof. Stuart's Letters, p. 89. Also, 
Smith's View of the Trin. 



' / 



22 



Every one will now detect the sophistry of such reasoning. 
Making Jesus the true God, does not, on the Trinitarian hypothesis, 
shut out the Father ; for he and the Father are one. " He is in 
the Father and the Father in him." Mr. W. next quotes, 2 John, 
7, to show that the pronoun this, does not always refer to the near- 
est antecedent. But it is in nowise a parallel case. In this last 
passage, the sense determines at once, that the pronoun does not 
refer to the nearest antecedent. The sense renders it necessary 
to refer it further back. But in the text, 1 John, v. 20. There is 
no such necessity, except on the previous assumption of the cer- 
tainty that Christ is not the true God ; but this is to assume what 
is in dispute. On the other hand, neither the grammatical con- 
struction, nor the idiom of the writer, allows us to refer the phrase, 
*' This is the true God and eternal life" to any other, than the 
Saviour. We say the idiom of John as a writer requires this. For 
eternal life must refer to the same antecedent, as the true God. 
And John is in the habit of using these words, life, and life eternal, 
as applied to Christ. He is called the way, the truth, and the life 
— the bread of life — giving life to the world. 1 John, i. 2. 
" This life, (Christ) was manifested, and we have seen it, and do 
testify to you and declare, the eternal life, which was with the 
Father, and was manifest to us." As this appellation life and 
life eternal is so frequently given to Christ by John, we must 
suppose he meant Christ, by the phrase eternal life, in the passage 
under consideration. But the same he calls the true God. In 
this passage then, Christ is called the true God and eternal 
life. 

We shall not stop to dispute about the genuineness of the other 
passage he notices, 1 John, v. 7, for the doctrine of Christ's di- 
vinity is amply supported without it, by passages the genuineness 
of which no one will question. 

Mr. W. says, " I think I have noticed all the verses which can 
give you the least trouble in explaining." By examination, the 
reader will notice, that in regard to every one of these passages, he 
found it necessary, before he could get rid of their " first sight" 
meaning, to assert the absurdity of the thing in dispute, and then 
say, the passage cannot mean this, for this would make it speak 
an absurdity. This is what logicians call reasoning in a circle, 
when he gets round, he is just where he was when he started.* 

We expected next to see the argument noticed, which arises 
from the attributes of Christ, for this is the next particular which 
he promised to consider. Yet he substitutes in the place of this 
particular, merely the consideration of one passage, viz. : Rev. 
xxii. 13. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning, and the end." 

* The reader will bear in mind, that the test, to which all these passages are brought,~is, 
Mr. W. 7 s bare assertion that Christ cannot be divine, because he is Son. He asserts that 
Christ cannot be divine , and then it follows of course that none of these passages can prove 
his divinity !. 



23 



Without noticing the parallel passages, he endeavors to prove that 
this passage means that Jesus is the beginning and end of the 
Gospel dispensation. And his proof is so satisfactory to himself, 
that he says, ' if you contradict it, you in effect, deny the Lord 
Jesus.' Now let us compare this passage with other parallel pas- 
sages. " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the 
first and the last." Turn to Rev. i. 8, " I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and the end, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, 
and which is to come, the Almighty." Isaiah, xliv. 6, " Thus 
saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of 
hosts ; I am the First and the Last ; and beside me there is no 
God." Isaiah, xlviii. 12, 13, 17, "I am. he; lam the First, I 
also am the Last. Mine hand hath also laid the foundation of the 
earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens. — Thus saith 
the Lord thy Redeemer, the holy one of -fefael, I am the Lord thy 
God." Can any one doubt who is meant here ? Is it not Jeho- 
vah, who hath laid the foundation of the earth, and whose right 
hand hath spanned the heavens ? And does not Christ in the 
verse first named, and in Rev. i. 8, call himself in the same con- 
nexion, the Almighty, and appropriate to himself the very same 
language which is applied as descriptive of him, beside whom, there 
is no God ? What need was there then of resorting to a forced 
construction, when parallel passages are full and explicit ? Ta- 
ken in connexion with other passages, this is proof of his eternal 
existence, and of his creative — almighty power. But why should 
the consideration of the attributes of Christ be passed over by 
merely noticing this one passage ? Why did he pass over the nu- 
merous passages which represent Christ as omniscient — " J am he 
which searcheth the reins and hearts." " As the Father knoweth 
me, even so know I the Father;" omnipresent — " Wherever two 
or three are gathered together in his name ;" eternal and immu- 
table — "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and forever 
almighty — " Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the 
Almighty ;" having creative and upholding power — " For by him 
were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin- 
cipalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him, 
and he is before all things, and by him all things consist ?" Now, 
"he that built all things is God." Why should he thus slip over 
the consideration of the divine attributes of Christ, after he had 
promised to notice them, and then say in his conclusion, p. 26, that 
" the names, attributes, &c. of Jesus, instead of proving him to be 
God, afford the most satisfactory evidence of his inferiority to the 
Father." Is it correct to draw inferences from premises which 
have not been considered ? Or is it fair to carry an impression by 
the conclusion, that the previous steps on which the conclusion rests, 
had been considered, when in fact they had been passed over, with 



24 



scarcely a notice ! If this would pass for argument from the pul- 
pit, could Mr. W. suppose that an intelligent reader, who would 
have time in his leisure perusal to think and examine, would be 
satisfied ? We shall not judge of the man's motives in thus slipping 
over the argument which proves Christ's proper divinity, viz. : that 
incommunicable divine attributes are ascribed to him. 

But to prevent swelling our pamphlet to a volume, we must omit 
some parts of the sermon, and will therefore, now pass over the 
other particulars in which he notices very cursorily, " the offices, 
works, and words of Jesus," and demonstrates, with the same des- 
patch, and in much the same way he has so often done before, 
that " ive deny the Lord Jesus" if we consider his qualifications to 
judge the world, his power to forgive sins, and to work miracles, 
and his name's being equally associated with the Father's in the 
formula of baptism, as proof of his divinity. 

Mr. W. proceeds to consider a second instance of the first kind 
of denying the Lord Jesus, which he finds in John, v. 17, 19. 

" The Jews accused Jesus of making himself equal with God ! by so doing, they 
contradicted his declarations ; and consequently denied the Lord Jesus." — " He 
(Jesus,) quickly denied the truth of their accusation with his strongest affirmation. 
Terily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself. A more explicit, 
direct, and positive denial he could not have given." 

But a consideration of the connexion and circumstances will 
show, that Christ did not design to deny the charge of making him- 
self equal with God, but rather to justify his own conduct. " The 
Son can do nothing of himself, but wliat he seeth the Father do." 
This last clause qualifies the other, and shows that he did not in- 
tend to deny, that he had healed the impotent man on the Sabbath 
day, but, that in so doing, he had done nothing criminal, nothing 
" but what the Father doeth." u For what things soever he doeth, 
these also doeth the Son likewise" He here claims the power of 
doing whatsoever the Father doeth, and from what follows, it is 
evident, that he meant to place himself on an equality, not only as 
it respects the power of doing what his Father did, but also as it 
respects the honors due for divine works. " For as the Father 
raiseth up the dead, and restoreth them to life, so also the Son re~ 
storeth to life whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, 
but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men might 

HONOR THE SON, EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER." 

" Is there not here an equality of power and honor ascribed to 
the Father and Son ? The Son is indeed introduced as " head 
over all things," but could he be such a head, could " all judg- 
ment be committed to him," if at the same time, he was not also, 
dsvine and consequently omniscient . ? It is perfectly plain that in 
so far as the " committing of judgment to the Son is concerned, it 
must be to the mediatorial person ; to one who in respect to office 
is subordinate to God. But in so far as qualifications, requisite to 
perform the duties which that commitment requires, are concerned, 



25 



the Saviour is divine ; and the honor to be claimed by him, is the 
same with that which the divinity himself claims. 

" In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could have used 
the words above quoted, without having exposed himself to renewed 
and just accusations of the Jews for blaspheming, unless he were 
really divine. The Jews had accused him of violating the Sab- 
bath, because he had, on that day, healed the impotent man at the 
pool of Bethesda. The reply of Christ to them was, " My Father 
worketh hitherto and I work ;" which, if I understand the argu- 
ment, must mean ; My Father has never ceased to work on the 
Sabbath, in carrying on the operations of the natural and moral 
world ; he supersedes the law of the Sabbath. I have the same 
right. " The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath." The Jews 
then sought to slay him, because, as they affirmed, " he had vio- 
lated the Sabbath, and said that God was his Father, making him- 
self equal with God.'''' In reply to their bitter accusations, Jesus 
made use of the language above cited ; telling them that he did 
whatever the Father did, and was entitled to the same honor. 
Was this relinquishing his claim to the equality with God, which 
the Jews had charged him with assuming ? Or was it speaking 
out plainly, that he wrought on the Sabbath day by the same right 
that the Father did, and was entitled to the same deference ? 
Can his words, interpreted without regard to any preconceived 
theory, be made to signify less than this ?"* And do we " deny 
the Lord Jesus," by receiving the natural meaning of his words ? 
Mr. W. follows this instance-of " denying the Lord Jesus," with 
three particulars, to prove that, " If we say Jesus is equal with 
God, we contradict the declarations of Moses and the Proph- 
ets, .... of Christ, .... and of the Apostles." 

Under each of these heads, the argument is the same begging 
of the main question, which appeared under the former heads. 
Under the first, he has the following : 

" 4 This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.' This is conclusive evi- 
dence that Jesus is a distinct being from the infinite God ; and also, that he is no 
third part, no equal part, no part, of the infinite God ; but truly the son of God." 

Under the second, he has the following : 

" Speaking of himself, he said — 4 1 am the son of God.' If he is a son, he must 
depend on a Father for existence ; for no son can exist without a Father." 

Under the third, he has the following : 

" If he was born in any sense, he cannot be equal to the Father who caused his 
birth. John asks — ' Who is a bar, but he that denyeth that Jesus is the Christ.' 
If he be Christ, he cannot be equal with God. For the words Christ and Messiah 
mean anointed ; and when applied to Jesus, mean anointed with the holy spirit. 
And if Jesus was the Christ, was thus anointed, he cannot be equal to the God trom 
whom he received the Spirit without measure." 

Now the amount of the whole, is, he is Son, and distinct from 
the Father, and, therefore, cannot be equal with his Father. Who 

* Stuart's Letters, pp. 99—101. 

4 



26 



denies that he is Son, and distinct from the Father ? But is this 
conclusive evidence that he cannot possess the same attributes — 
that he cannot be equal ? A son and a father are distinct, and no 
part of each other ; but may they not possess the same nature, 
and be equal ? We repeat it, we believe, as fully as Mr. W., 
that Christ is the Son of God, that he is the Messiah, anointed, he. 
that there is a sense, in which, the Father is " greater than the 
Son." All this is perfectly consistent with our views of Christ's 
divinity and equality with the Father. And why should Mr. W., 
after all the explanations that have been given on this subject, re- 
peat again, through four heads, in substance the same argument, 
" he is Son, and therefore, cannot be equal with the Father 
when the dispute is, whether he, who is Son, Messiah, he. is not 
also divine ? Does he not at this late day, understand the ground 
of the controversy r Or does he think to make his opponents ap- 
pear ridiculous by misrepresenting them ? Is not a writer, who will 
spread over so much surface in this way, hard pressed for argu- 
ment? His conclusion is on the assumption, that the appellation 
Son of God, necessarily denotes, not only a separate person, but 
one who cannot be equal with his Father, and who cannot have the 
same nature with his Father. And his whole argument, through 
the whole sermon, is built on this assumption. But this assump- 
tion is not admitted. Trinitarians believe both that he is Son, and 
that he is equal with his Father. 

But here, Mr. W. will say, " What an absurdity is this ! — The 
Son of God, himself God !" Unitarians are perpetually stumbling 
at this stumbling stone, and casting it in the way of others. " They 
impose upon themselves, and upon others, by a species of sophis- 
try, by which no wise man ought to be deceived. In this trite ob- 
jection, Mr. W. is continually begging the main question in debate. 
Only admit the Trinitarian distinction of persons in the Godhead, 
and the pretended absurdity vanishes at once. If there are in the 
Godhead three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and each 
of these three, in inseparable union with the other two, is God, 
then there is no absurdity in saying, that Jesus Christ is both the 
Son of God, and himself God. This does not suppose that he is 
Son of himself, it only imports that he is Son of the Father.* 

Neither does his being Son, imply inferiority in nature to the 
Fattier. On the contrary, it imports sameness and equality of 
nature. Was not David of the same nature with Jesse, whose son 
he was, and of equal attributes and dignity ? Is not a true and 
proper son always of the same nature with his Father ? Jesus is 
called the Son of man, because he partakes of human nature and 
is truly man. Why then should we not understand, that he is cal- 
led the Son of God, the only begotten of the father, be- 
cause he also has the same nature with the Father, and is truly 
* See what is said of different senses,, in which the word Father is used, on pp. 12, 13. 



27 



divine ? It was so understood by the Jews, to whom, the appella- 
tion, Son of God, as belonging to the Messiah, was familiar. Jesus 
said to them, " My Father worketh hitherto and I work." There- 
fore the Jews sought to kill him, because he said that God was his 
Father, making himself equal with God." They understood him 
to call God his Father, not in a sense, in which, angels and men 
call him their Father ; but in a peculiarly high sense, in a sense 
which made God his natural father, and himself in nature divine, 
and equal with the Father. It was upon this ground, that they af- 
terwards persisted in charging him with blasphemy, and finally con- 
demned him to death. — Jesus said to Nathanaei, " Before that 
Piiilip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." 
Perceiving in this the divine attribute of omniscience, Nathanaei 
replied, " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God ;" evidently understand- 
ing this appellation to import true divinity. It cannot reasonably 
be doubted, that such was the understanding of Peter, and of 
Thomas, and the other disciples, when they acknowledged Jesus 
to be " the Christ, the Son of the living God," and worshipped 
him as their Lord and their God."* 

Mr. W. found it necessary to notice some passages of Scripture, 
which seem " at first sight," to imply, that Jesus is equal with 
God, These passages, he disposes of, much in the same way, as 
he disposed of passages before. We think it well, however, to 
notice particularly his treatment of one passage, viz. : Philippians, 
ii. 6, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to 
be equal with God." 

" Paul is inculcating humility upon his converts, from the example of Jesus. ' Let 
this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.' Now can you believe, that 
when the apostle is exhorting his brethren, to think of others more highly than 
themselves, he would mention as an instance of Christ's humility, that he did not 
think his own Father higher than himself; that he thought it nothing wrong to 
claim an equality with the infinite Jehovah ! A singular way indeed of promoting 
humility ; and making Christians of the same mind with Christ. No. No, you will 
not attribute such absurdities to the pen of the inspired Paul. What then must we 
do ? Does not the passage read, that ' he thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God?' In our translation, it does. But you should remember that this epistle was 
written in the Greek language. And you may know that scholars of all parties agree 
that our translation of this sentence is not correct. What then is the true rendering ? 
The literal meaning of the Greek words is this. i He did not think of the robbery, 
the being like God ' " 

The reader is requested to examine particularly the above para- 
graph. You perceive, that he endeavors to make the expression, 
" thought it not robbery to be equal with God," appear absurd, 
when taken in connexion with the apostle's design. But every^ 
reader will perceive, that his claim to an equality with God does 
not stand alone, and is not, in itself, the act of humility which 
makes him a pattern of this virtue. He who being in the form of 
God, and who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, made 
himself of no reputa tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, 

* See Worcester's third Letter to Dr, Channing 7 p. 16. 



28 



and was made in the likeness of men : and being found in fashion 
as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross. Now this alters the case. It is his 
coming down from his exalted state — his leaving the glory he had 
with the Father before the world was, — his taking the form of a 
servant, and becoming obedient unto death, that renders him an 
example of humility. And does not the circumstance, that his 
equality is first mentioned, greatly increase his humility in becom- 
ing a servant . ? Is there not a greater manifestation of humility, 
when a Prince condescends to a menial service, than when a ser- 
vant, in the ordinary discharge of duty, does the same thing? 
From being in the form of God, he took the form of a servant. 
A parallel passage, is found in 2 Cor. viii. 9, Though he was rich, 
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty 
might be made rich. This is brought as an example of the self- 
denying love of Christ, to animate the church at Corinth in their 
benevolent deeds. Now what would you think, if we should rea- 
son in the same way as Mr. W. did, and say, 'Can you believe 
that when the apostle is exhorting his brethren to be benevolent, 
he would mention, as an instance of Christ's benevolence, that he 
was rich. This is absurd. We must not attribute such an ab- 
surdity to Paul, we must then alter the passage, and say, he never 
was rich.'' Now this is precisely the same kind of reasoning. 
But when we read the rest of the passage, we learn that his being 
rich, is the very circumstance which increases, and renders so 
illustrious his self-denial, in sacrificing it all, and becoming poor 
for our sakes. 

But what can he mean by his being once rich, and becoming 
poor ? He was never reduced in his earthly circumstances. In 
this respect he was always poor. But he was rich, in the glory he 
had with the Father before the world was, and he became poor, 
by leaving it for a time, by assuming human nature, taking the 
form of a servant, and living in poverty, and affliction, and dying 
on the cross. Or, as in the passage before us, " Being in the form 
of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, he made 
himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, 
and was made in the likeness of men ?" This is humility indeed. 
And we see, that it corresponds with the manner of Paul, to con- 
trast his humble condition here on earth, with his exalted state be- 
fore his incarnation, for the purpose of enhancing our sense of his 
self-denial and humiliation. And besides, if the phrase, u form of 
a servant," means, as is obvious from the sentiment which the 
apostle was inculcating, and from the history of our Saviour's life, 
that he did actually take the condition of one, who was in a hum- 
ble and depressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of 
the cross, then must not the phrase " form of God," with which, 



29 



form of a servant is here contrasted, mean the condition of one 
who is actually divine ? 

But Mr. W. looking at the expression, " thought it not robbery 
to be equal with God" alone, disjoined from the circumstance of 
his humbling himself from that state to the condition of a servant, 
ridicules the idea of there being any humility in his claiming 
equality with God. He therefore concludes, that the passage can- 
not mean, that Christ was equal with God. " Paul could not be 
so absurd. We must then find some other meaning." He seems 
to be somewhat embarrassed to know how to dispose of this pas- 
sage. He says, 

" What then must we do ? Does not the passage read, that ' he thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God ?' In our translation it does. But you should re- 
member that this Epistle was written in the Greek language. And you may know 
that scholars of all parties agree that our translation of this sentence is not correct. 
What then is the true rendering ? The literal meaning of the Greek words is this. 
•' He did not think uf the robbery, the being like God.' " 

We know not how to express our surprise, after he had referred 
us to the Greek, and inquired for a true rendering, that he should 
say, the literal meaning of the Greek words is this, " He did not 
think of the robbery" &c. Notwithstanding all the evidence we 
had, from the former part of the sermon, that he was determined 
to model the Scriptures to his own party views, we were not pre- 
pared to believe, that in the midst of his zeal, and after having 
spoken about what scholars know, he would hazard his own repu- 
tation as a scholar. He professed to give a literal translation. 
Why did he not go to his Greek Testament and Lexicon, instead 
of adopting a rendering, which has been given for party purposes, 
and which, instead of being literal, is not even admissible I And 
we ask Mr. W. what authority he has for his assertion, that this is 
a literal translation. We do not ask what other Unitarian has 
adopted this means to get rid of the obvious meaning of the pas- 
sage, but we ask, what Greek Lexicon, or what Greek authority 
can he plead as proof of his assertion ? Or even that the Greek 
is susceptible of such a rendering, without violating the principles 
of the Greek language ? We know, indeed, that a translation 
may be given of the passage under consideration, which would 
make it speak the sentiment the apostle was inculcating, (humility,) 
more forcibly, but which would not at all affect the consideration 
of Christ's equality with the Father. Every correct translation 
will retain the two ideas of Christ's being in the condition or form 
of God, and his being equal luith God. We will form no conjec- 
tures about Mr. WVs motives, in thus torturing the plain letter of 
Scripture, or in asserting concerning the original, what cannot be 
supported by any good authority. We need only say, it became 
necessary in order to prepare the way for his conclusion, viz. : 

" The Old Testament does not contain one passage in which it is either declared, 
or implied, that the Son is equal with God. The New Testament does not furnish 
one passage, in which it is either declared, or implied, that the Son is equal with God." 



30 



The honest inquirer after truth, who makes the Scriptures his 
guide, and who feels himself accountable, will be cautious about 
adopting a conclusion, for the support of which, it is necessary to 
say so much about interpolations, or if there is no plausible ground 
for this, to condemn the translation, and to assert that to be a 
literal one, which every one acquainted with Greek knows, or 
ought to know, is not a literal one. 

Mr. W. now considers one instance of the second kind of denying 
the Lord Jesus, i. e. " by deed." We have already expressed 
our surprise, that in treating the subject of denying Christ " by 
deed" he should have hit upon worshipping him, as either the 
only, or as the most prominent way of denying Christ " by deed." 
Taking no notice of his persecutors, his betrayers, or his cru- 
cifiers, or of those false teachers who are expressly said to deny 
Christ, and bring upon themselves swift destruction, he fixes upon 
the beloved disciple John, as practically a denier of the Lord 
Jesus ! ! ! 

As the consequences of denying Christ are so awful, and as so 
much is said by way of warning us against denying Christ, we should 
suppose that if this sin consisted peculiarly in worshipping him, Mr. 
W. would have been able to bring some plain, express prohibition of 
this act. Let him bring one single passage which says, we shall not 
" honor the Son, as we honor the Father," and it sufficeth us. But 
such unnatural and forced interpretations, look too much like a 
determination, at all events, to get over the difficulty to his system, 
arising from the worship of the " Lamb who was slain." He 
takes the 22d chapter of Revelations, — a chapter, by the way, full 
of the divinity of Christ — in which, it is twice said, " The throne 
of God and the Lamb — in which he is called the First and the 
Last, the same titles that, in the Old Testament, are given to the 
only true God — in which he is called the root, and the offspring 
of David, — in which it is said in one verse, " The Lord God of 
the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the 
things which must shortly be done ;" and, in another verse, " / 
Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the 
churches. In the 9th verse, Mr. W. considers John, as falling 
down before Jesus to worship him, and Jesus expressly forbids 
him. He says, " by turning to the passage in question, you will 
notice, that Jesus is called the angel." And to justify this asser- 
tion, he says, the name angel is given to Jesus, in the first verse of 
the first chapter of the same book. But the reader, on examina- 
tion, will perceive that Jesus Christ, whose revelation it was, " sent 
and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." He appeals 
also to the 16th verse of the 22d chapter, to show that Jesus is 
speaking. But the reader will perceive that Jesus who is speak- 
ing, says, " I have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things 
in the churches." And the apostle himself says, " I fell down to 



31 



worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these 
things," that is, before the feet of the angel which Jesus sent to 
testify unto him these tilings. Notwithstanding the suddenness of 
the transition, from one person to another as the speaker, a diffi- 
culty common in prophetic writings, yet can anything be more 
plain, than that it was the angel whom Jesus sent, before whom 
John fell down to worship, and not Jesus himself, unless he who 
sends, and he who is sent, is one and the same ? 

Why did not Mr. W. consult parallel passages. In chapter xix. 
10, there is another instance of John's offering worship to the an- 
gel, and the angel declined the homage in the same manner. In 
this case, the context affords the most distinct information, that 
the angel was not. Jesus, but he whom Jesus had sent, who was 
fellow servant with John, and those who had the testimony of Jesus. 
We need not dwell on this, for the reader will not be in danger, if he 
turns to the 5th chapter, of supposing that John was forbidden to 
worship the Lamb, before whom he saw the four beasts, and the 
four and twenty elders fall down and worship, having every one of 
them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers 
of saints ; and round about whose throne the number of them ivas 
ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, say- 
ing, with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to re- 
ceive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and 
glory, and blessing. 

After having considered John as guilty of worshipping Christ, 
in falling down before the angel whom Christ sent, the way is pre- 
pared to say under distinct heads, as before, " If you worship 
Jesus as God, you disobey the instructions of Moses and the proph- 
ets, .... of Christ, .... of the Apostles." 

Mr. W.'s mode of reasoning is the same here, as formerly. 
Under the first of these heads, he says, 

" They, (Moses and the prophets) have recorded the commands of God. The 
first is this. ' Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.' . . . The word me can 
mean but one person. . . . This one person said, by his servant, — ' Thou shalt 
worship no other God ; for the Lord is a jealous God.' If then you worship Jesus 
as God, you disobey the first great command and have another God besides your 
heavenly Father."* 

To confirm this, he quotes the prayer of Hezekiah, and says, 
" This prayer is not addressed to the Son, but to one God, in one 
person." Need we make a single remark on this mode of reason- 
ing ? Who does not see, that it assumes what remains to be 

* The two systems have, then, according to Mr. W., different Gods. The difference then 
is practical, most vitally and essentially practical. Having two different objects of worship, 
the systems must be essentially different from the foundation to the top stone. The time was, 
not long since, when Unitarians represented the difference as trivial, and merely speculative, 
not such as to affect Christian character, and on this ground, condemned all separations as 
the effects of bigotry, and want of charity. But the times have changed, and surely, after 
having commended and circulated this sermon, they will no more complain of Orthodox 
ministers for refusing to exchange with them, nor of Orthodox Christians for leaving their 
places of worship. Nor can Christians, who love and worship the Saviour, any longer 
hesitate in regard to their duty. 



32 



proved, viz. : that from the one God, Jesus is excluded ? Do 
not Trinitarians worship one God ? Is it not the first article of all 
their creeds, that there is but one God, and that this one God is the 
only object of worship ? If he had first proved, that the worship of 
the one true God was exclusive of the Word (Logos) who was with 
God, and who was God, then his argument would have been in point, 
but now it proves nothing. It is only his assertion, that Jesus is not 
God. After quoting the first command, and the passage, " thou shalt 
worship no other God," and the prayer of Hezekiah in which he wor- 
shipped one God, he then says, " All the commands and examples of 
the Old Testament are in perfect accordance with the specimens quo- 
ted." Granted. What then ? " Why, that is, all the Old Testament 
is positive in its instructions to worship one, and but one God." All 
true, what then ? " If therefore you worship Jesus as God, you 
disobey the instructions of Moses, and the prophets, and conse- 
quently deny the lord Jesus." Now from what does this inference 
follow ? From the fact that there is but one God ? It yet remains 
to be proved, that Jesus, in union with the Father and Spirit, is not 
this one God. — That he is not in the Father, and the Father not in 
him. Before he drew the sweeping conclusion, that in worshipping 
Jesus, we are guilty of worshipping another God, and are idola- 
ters, should he not have proved the second proposition in his syl- 
logism, " Jesus is not divine — not one with the Father ?" His 
syllogism is, 

1. There is but one God, the proper object of worship. 

2. Jesus is not God who is to be worshipped. 

3. Therefore if you worship Jesus, you worship another God. 
Who does not see, that in the second part, is assumed the whole 

thing in dispute, and that until this is proved, not merely asse?*ted, 
the conclusion, in the third, cannot be sustained ? Will any re- 
spectable Unitarian say this is not sophistry ? 

Under another head, he brings forward Jesus as the holy child, 
as anointed by the Father ; as though this were inconsistent with 
his divinity. And as though he must, at all events, prepare the 
way for his conclusion, viz. " If you worship Jesus as God, you 
disobey all apostolic instruction," he cuts several texts in two, and 
leaves out that part which contains worship to the Son, in precisely 
the same way, that the part he quotes does to the Father. As an 
example of the exclusive worship of the Father, he quotes 2 John, 
3. Grace be with you from God the Father, here he stops in 
the middle of the verse, the remainder of which is, " and from the 
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father." Jude, he says, be- 
gins his Epistle with the mention of God the Father, and here 
stops, when Jesus Christ immediately follows. And immediately 
after quoting the first part of each of these passages which contain 
God the Father, he says, " It was their uniform practice to wor- 
ship the Father of Jesus, and him only, as the supreme God." 



33 



Whereas, if he had quoted the last half of the passages, with only a 
comma between, he would have found the Lord Jesus Christ, 
associated equally with the Father. We do not ask, whether this 
is fairness, but is it common honesty ? To every one, who does not 
take the trouble to turn to the passages in question, but who trusts 
in Mr. W.'s quotation, the impression would be, that the Father 
was worshipped, and that Christ was excluded ; but on turning to 
the passage he finds but half was quoted ; and the part which 
contained worship to the Son, as much as the other did to the 
Father, was left out ! ! On discovering this, we were involuntarily 
reminded of a writer, who lately quoted a part of a paragraph 
from Mosheim, to prove that the Trinity was introduced in the 
fourth century, when the remaining part of the same paragraph, 
contained proof directly to the contrary.* 

In this way, we might prove that Jesus only, and not the Father, 
is to be worshipped, for we might quote the last half, and leave 
the first, as well as, he the first, and leave the last. But no, we 
will take the whole, and say with the apostle, " Grace be with 
you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord 
Jesus Christ." Again, taking Mr. W. on his own ground, he 
allows that the 2 John, 3, " Grace be with you from God the 
Father, is a prayer to God the Father, whom Jesus taught them 
to worship, for he quotes it as an example of the worship of the 
Father. In doing this, he unintentionally concedes, or rather 
proves, that Christ is an object of worship ; for the other part, not 
only of this, but of numerous other like passages, contains pre- 
cisely the same prayer to Christ. The reader will please to turn 
to the following passages, as proof of this remark. Gal. i. 3. 
Eph. vi. 23. 2 Tim. i. 2. Tit. i. 4. 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 

2. Eph. i. 2. Phil. i. 2. Col. i. 2. 1 Tim. i. 1, 2. Philem. 

3. 1 Thes. i. 1, iii. 11. 2 Thes. i. 1, 2. These, and nume- 
rous other passages must be dissected, in order to keep out of sight 
the fact, that Christ, the Son, is equally associated with the Fa- 
ther as an object of invocation and worship. What would you 
think of a writer, who, to prove that the Father only was to be 
worshipped, should quote, from Matt, xxviii. 19, "Baptizing 
them in the name of the Father," and here stop ? But this is pre- 
cisely the same thing, that Mr. W. has done, with the other pas- 
sages. There is only this difference, the form of baptism is so 
familiar, that no one could be deceived in this way. But in regard 
to the passages Mr. W. has used in this way, not one in ten of his 
readers, who did not turn to the passages, would suspect any un- 
fairness. It is on the ground of such reasoning, that this writer 
takes upon himself the responsibility of saying, that we " disobey 
all apostolic instruction," and at the close of almost every para- 
graph unhesitatingly pronounces us, the " deniers of the Lord 

* See Sermon preached at Mr. Whitman's ordination, p. 8. 



34 



Jesus " I ! ! What must we think of a cause which requires such 
defence . ? * 

He next notices a few texts which seem to ascribe divine honors 
to Christ. " His disciples worshipped him, but not as God," he 
says. What is his argument to prove that the}- worshipped him 
not as God. " For they said, in so many words, ' of a truth thou 
art the Son of God.' " Wherever he finds Jesus called " Son of 
God" he finds a distinct proof that he is not God. " Quod erat 
demonstrandum." But enough has been said on this mode of rea- 
soning. We merely notice it, as we pass along over the sermon, to 
show that the author is continually recurring to it, or rather that 
this is the sum and substance of all his argument. In order to 
shape the passage which requires us to honor the Son, even as we 
honor the Father, so as to make it consistent with refusing him 
divine honors, he says, we honor the Son as we do the Father, 
" when we acknowledge him as the commissioned Son of God ; 
and receive his instructions as the wisdom of God ; and obev his 
precepts as the commands of God." But this makes him a mere 
messenger of God, and places him on a level with Paul and John. 
For were not Paul and John commissioned messengers of God ; and 
do we not receive their instructions as the wisdom of God ; and 
obey their precepts as the commands of God f> Will Mr. W. say 
then, that we should honor Paul, and John, even as we honor God ? 

After noticing much in the same manner two or three other pas- 
sages, he sums up his conclusion as follows: 

" The Old Testament doe? not contain one command to offer religious homage to 
Jesus ; nor an example in which he was worshipped as God. On the contrary, we 
are instructed, by precept and example, to oiler all prayers to the one true God, the 
Father of Jesus. The New Testament does not once direct us to offer religious ho- 
mage to Jesus; and does not furnish one example in wluch he was worshipped as 
God; but contains explicit prohibitions of the act. On the contrary, it contains 
ninety passages in which we are directed to offer all prayers to God the Father. I 
must therefore conclude that Jesus is not to be worshipped as God." 

As it respects explicit prohibitions, it will be remembered, that 
the only one Mr. W. could find, was that John was forbidden to 

*In reading the sermon under review, and severa 1 other pamphlets recently and diligently 
circulated by Unitarians, we were forcibly impressed with the reflection, that a cause which 
was dependent on such kind of support, could not be good. In some of these pamphlets, we 
find a species of deceptive reasoning which on anv other subject, where party feelings had no 
influence, the same writers would disown as unworthy the name of argument. In others, we 
find Trinitarians most grossly misrepresented in regard to all their articles of faith, and then 
held up to ridieule, as believing in absurdities and contradictions. In others, we find slan- 
derous insinuations against the characters of men of unblemished reputation. In many, we 
find laborious attempts, either to expunge those parts of scripture which seem to favour the 
divinity of Christ, or if they are suffered to remain, to give them an unnatural and forced 
interpretation. One writer warns his readers to be on their guard against what is called the 
natural signification of words and 2}hrases. Mr. W. found it necessary to do away the ''Jirst 
sight" meaning of many passages. It would seem that they have, practically, adopted the 
principle of Smalcius, who wrote about two centuries since, who says. " We believe that 
though we find rt not once, nor twice, but frequently, and most expresslij written in Scripture, 
that God became man, it would be much better, as it is an absurd proposition,^ invent some 
way of speaking, which might render it proper to be affirmed of God, rather than to under- 
stand it in a literal sense." Such is the liberty taken with the Scriptures ! What is it. but to 
desert the Bible as the standard of truth, and erect an altar to our own pride and self-suffi- 
ciency 1 Can such modes of defending a cause receive the blessing of Him, who has guarded 
his Word with the most awful sanctions, and declared that not one" jot or tittle of it shall fail ? 



35 



worship the angel whom Jesus sent ! As it respects the ninety- 
passages which direct us to offer all prayers to the Father, exclu- 
sively of the Son, we have a curiosity to know where they are, and 
whether some of them are not half passages, leaving out the part 
which contains a prayer to Christ. 

Now, let us go to " the law and the testimony " and there learn 
whether we are, or are not, once directed " to offer religious hom- 
age to Jesus." iVnd let us go with candor, and rely upon what we 
there find. If we go with teachable dispositions, and take the 
Bible as it stands, without any glosses or dissections, we may, it is 
believed, come to the truth on this infinitely important subject. We 
say infinitely important, for it affects both the object of our worship, 
and the grounds of our acceptance with God. " If we deny Christ 
before men, he will deny us before his Father who is in heaven." 
" And what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and 
lose his own soul V Let us then be honest to ourselves, and go 
to the Bible, not with desires to support preconceived opinions, or 
to favor a party ; but to find the simple truth, remembering that 
any advantage which may be gained as a disputant, or a partizan, 
will be transient, while the truth will remain eternal, and he that is 
built npon it, shall be unshaken and immovable in the midst of 
the storm which shall sweep away every vestige of error. The 
truth only will benefit us, and nothing can be gained by management 
or artifice in a concern like this, but the immortal soul may be lost. 
We should then be tremblingly alive to the inquiry, What is truth f 
for it touches our immortal interests. What then, let us simply 
inquire, did the apostles and primitive disciples of our Lord and 
Saviour say, and do, relative to the subject before us ? Did thej r , 
or did they not, render to the Saviour religious homage 9 

When the apostles were assembled at Jerusalem, for the first 
time after the Saviour's ascension to heaven, and were proceeding 
to elect another apostle in the room of Judas the traitor, they made 
invocation to the Saviour, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the 
hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. 
The last words of the expiring Stephen, were a prayer to the Sa- 
viour. " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, 
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down and cried 
with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." This 
prayer is offered to Jesus in the very same language, and with the 
same confidence, with which Jesus, when expiring on the cross, 
committed his spirit into the hands of the Father. This disciple 
also implores of the Lord Jesus forgiveness for his murderers. 
Can a departing spirit be intrusted to any being, and the forgive- 
ness of sin be expected of him, who has not omnipotence and 
supreme authority ? In writing to the Thessalonians, Paul prays 
not only to the Father, but to the Lord Jesus Christ, to " direct 
his way unto them," and that " their hearts might be comforted 



36 



and established, in every good word and work." Christians were 
distinguished in the apostles' time, as those, who called on the 
name of the Lord Jesus. " They who call upon the name of 
Christ, was a kind of proper name by which they were known." 
Annanias, when bid by the Saviour to go and inquire for Saul of 
Tarsus, says, / have heard how much evil he hath done to thy saints 
at Jerusalem ; and here he hath authority, from the chief priests, 
to bind all that call on thy name. And when the disciples in 
Judea heard of Saul's conversion, they said, Is not this he, who 
destroyed them which called on this name, i. e. the name of Christ, 
in Jerusalem ? The same writer again, in his first Epistle to Tim- 
othy, points out Christians, by using the phrase, They that call 
upon the Lord, as descriptive of them. These passages show us, 
that the first Christians were known by this trait in their character, 
viz. They habitually invoked, or called upon, the name of Christ. 
And Annanias said to Paul, Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. Paul says to 
the Romans, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, 
shall be saved. The same apostle to the Corinthians says, Unto 
the church of God at Corinth . . . with all that in every place call 
upon the name of the Lord Jesus, i. e. all Christians ; naming 
them by mentioning that distinguishing act of their religion, viz. 
invocation upon Jesus. The same Paul when he had a thorn in 
the flesh, besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from him. 
In these passages the context makes it certain, that by the Lord, 
Christ is meant. 

The apostles were in the habit of supplicating grace and peace 
from the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as from the Father. Grace 
to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
See the same prayer repeated, in 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. 2 
John, 3, and numerous other places. Mr. W. has acknowledged 
that these contain a prayer to the Father. But the same blessings 
are solicited from Christ and the Father. " Moreover the holy 
apostle, who in the visions of God saw heaven opened, tells us that 
the four living creatures, and the four and twenty elders fell down 
before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials 
full of odours. But what are these odours, which the leaders of the 
heavenly choir present, in the posture of humble adoration, to the 
Lamb ? The writer has told us, they are the prayers of the saints, 
i. e. of the church on earth. Here then, it is made certain, that 
the Lamb is the object of invocation, by the saints on earth, and of 
religious adoration by the host of heaven above. 

Paul does not scruple to direct the same expression of homage 
and praise to the Saviour, as to God the Father. At the close of 
his Epistle to the Hebrews, he says, Jesus Christ, to whom be 
glory forever and ever, Amen. Peter says the same thing ; Grow 



37 



in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ ; to him be glory both now and forever, Amen. 

In heaven they do the same. Says the holy apostle who enjoyed 
the visions of God, Every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I 
saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever. 
Here is that Lamb of God who has taken away the sins of the 
toorld, on the throne of the universe ; here he is represented as 
worshipped by all heaven, in the same manner, as He is, who 
sitteth with him on the throne.* 

And why should not this be so, if the same apostle, who relates 
this, is worthy of credit in his other declarations . ? He has said 
that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God. He has told us, that all things were 
made by him, and that, without him was nothing made which was 
made. He has said of the Son of God, This is the true God and 
eternal life. Paul also has given us sufficient reason to regard the 
Saviour as the object of our worship. He has declared him to be 
God, over all, blessed forever. He has affirmed of him, that in the 
beginning he laid the foundation of the earth; that the heavens are 
the work of his hands ; — and that while they shall perish, he is the 
same, and his years shall not fail. He has said, that by him all 
things were created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principali- 
ties, or powers : all things were created by him and for him. The 
same apostle has taught us to look for the blessed hope, and glori- 
ous appearing of the great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ."-f 
We might add a great number of texts which require us with all 
the heart to love him, to obey him, to confide in him, to commit 
ourselves to hirn in such a manner, as implies religious homage, and 
as we can never persuade ourselves to do, with respect to any 
being who is not divine. 

' We are taught to derive our happiness, and we enjoy our only 
hope from trusting in Christ. But if he is only finite, why should 

* Ecclesiastical History is full in its confirmation of the worship of Christ. Justin Martyr, 
about forty years after the death of St. John, says, " We worship and adore the Father, and 
the Son who came from him, and the prophetic Spirit." 

Athanagoras, who lived soon after Justin, says, " We call upon God the Father, and God 
the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing their power in the unity and their distinction in 
order." Elem. Ch. Theol by Bp. of Lincoln, Vol. ii. p. 93. 

" So common was it among the early Christians to pay religious homage to Christ, that it 
was usual to distinguish them by this circumstance. Pliny, Governor of Bythnia, in a letter 
to the Emperor Trajan, says he had made inquiries concerning the Christians, and learned, 
' that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight and to sing with one 
another a hymn to Christ as God.' Eusebius, (Hist. Ecc. v. 25.) proving the opinion that 
Christ is a mere man to be a departure from the primitive faith, quotes a writer still more 
ancient as saying, 1 Moreover, all the psalms and htjmns of the Brethren, written from the 
beginning bij the faithful, celebrate the praises of Christ, the Word of God, and attribute divin- 
itij to hirn.' r 

t See Prof. Stuart's Sermon, from Matt. 18—20. 



38 



we be directed to trust in him and commit our souls to his keeping, 
when there is an infinite and all-sufficient God to whom we may 

go?' 

We shall leave the reader to judge whether the Scriptures do 
or do not "furnish one example, or once direct us to offer religious 
homage to Jesus." 

When we read the vision, and hear 

" The whole creation join in one, 
To bless the sacred name 
Of Him who sits upon the throne, 
And to adore the Lamb ; " 

" we may ask those who forbid us," and who say we deny the 
Lord, " Is not this a being whom we are warranted, and bound to 
worship and adore ? Must we confine our adoration, our sacred 
acts of religious homage, to 1 Him that sitteth on the throne,'' and 
exclude 1 the Lamb V Or if we may unite his name with that 
of the Father in our ascriptions of glory, and honor, and blessing, 
and power, what is the kind, and what the measure of homage 
which we are to consider ourselves as paying to him I Has a 
book, of which one of the leading designs is, to proscribe, and 
finally to abolish, all idolatry, represented the whole creation as 
uniting in one solemn act of adoration to God and to the Lamb ; 
and by this very representation, called upon us, who are a part of 
the creation of God, to adore, and honor the Lamb, in the very 
same terms in which we adore and honor the Father ; while at the 
same time it commands us to keep at an infinite distance from every 
approach to the worship of any creature, enjoining us to worship 
the Lord our God, and to serve him only ?'** 

Instead of finding no examples of prayer to Christ in the Scrip- 
tures, we find them very numerous and explicit. And we cannot 
avoid coming to the conclusion either that Christ is truly divine, in- 
asmuch as he is so often represented as the object of worship ; or 
that the sacred writers have, by the natural import of their lan- 
guage, led us to that which must be considered as idolatry. 

Now add to all this, that the incommunicable attributes of divinity 
are ascribed to Christ, in the very same language in which they 
are ascribed to the Father, and that those works are performed by 
him, which none but God can perform, and that he both assumes, 
and receives those titles, which, under the same circumstances, it 
would be blasphemy to give to a mere man, or for a mere man to 
receive, and are we not compelled to receive him as ' God over 
all blessed forever, and to hon or him even as we honor the Father V 

But Mr. W. has the following very remarkable paragraph. 

** Now is there any possible way in which you can overthrow these conclusions ? 
You will attempt the work in but one manner. You can say that Jesus is possessed 
of two distinct natures ; that he is ' very God ' and ' very man ;? that all my argu- 
ments refer to his human nature ; and in that sense are perfectly sound ; but that he 

* See Wardlaw's Reply, p. 232. 



39 



also possesses a nature truly divine ; and is in truth directly the opposite of all that 
has been proved. This you can say, and may say, if you please. But this has not 
been said, either by Jesus himself, or by his apostles, or by any sacred writer. Not 
a word, not even a hint, can you find in the whole Bible, which intimates that Jesus 
possessed two distinct natures. Your saying, therefore, has no foundation in revela- 
tion ; it is mere human assertion. 

" But how would you attempt to prove the truth of this assertion ? You would 
first prove, as I have done, that Jesus is a created, dependent being. Then you 
would say, his names, and attributes, and offices, and works, and words prove him 
to be ' very God.' Now apply this mode of reasoning to the ancient Prophets, and 
the inspired Apostles, . . . and you have precisely the same kind of evidence, and 
not greatly inferior in degree, to prove them truly divine, as you have to prove Jesus 
truly divine. You must do it, to be consistent in your reasoning ; or you must admit 
that he had but one nature. You have your choice." 

We make this long quotation, that the reader may see how Mr. 
W. anticipates, and endeavors to prepare the minds of his readers 
to reject, the doctrine of two natures in Christ. He seems to be 
aware, that all his arguments would be considered, as proving no- 
thing more, than that he possessed a human nature. And no won- 
der he had such anticipations, for we are unable, after a repeated 
perusal, to find anything in the whole sermon to disprove the di- 
vinity of Christ, only that he was human, and therefore could not 
be divine — that he w T as Son of God, and therefore could not be 
God. But we all believe, that Christ was human — that he was the 
anointed Son of God— -that he was Messiah, because we have 
abundant proof that he was so. But we have, to us, equally satis- 
factory proof, that he was also divine — God manifest in the flesh. 
And could Mr. W. suppose that he should convince any one, that 
Christ was not divine, by proving that he was human, which we 
all, in common, believe, and then asserting that be could have but 
one nature ! We shall say nothing of the disrespectful, and rather 
petulant language used in the above quotation. But we ask if it 
proves any tiling ? Instead of asserting that, our " saying has no 
foundation in revelation, it is mere human assertion" would it not 
have been as consistent and proper for him to have noticed, what 
we consider a foundation in revelation for the divine and human 
natures Why did he not tell us, in what sense he was before 
Abraham, and yet the son of Abraham ; in what sense he was Da- 
vid's Lord, and yet David's son ; in what sense he is the root, and 
yet the offspring of David ? Why did he not tell us, what we are 
to understand, by Christ's being in the form of God, and yet not 
eagerly seeking to retain his equality with God, taking upon him- 
self the form of a servant ? What we are to understand by his once 
being rich, and becoming poor ? What, by his prayer, " Now, O 
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I 
had with thee before the world was ? " What, by the phrase, " the 
Word became flesh ? " Why was ascribed to him, and how he 
actually displayed, all the divine attributes, while at the same time 
he manifested, with the exception of sin, all the appearances of a 
man ? Why he is so often called God in an absolute sense, accom- 



40 



panied with attributes, and works which exclude the idea of any 
other, than the Creator, and Governor, and Judge of the world ; 
and yet called a servant, the son of man ? Every one must per- 
ceive, and if he will be candid, acknowledge, that there are two 
classes of texts, and each numerous, which represent Christ as 
human and as divine — the one as having all the properties that be- 
long to man, and the other as having all the properties that belong 
to God. Would it not have been candid in a writer, to give a 
respectful notice of these considerations, rather than to say, " Not 
a word, not even a hint can you find in the whole Bible, which 
intimates that Jesus possessed two distinct natures" ? 

But after this, he offers two objections to Christ's divine nature. 

1. " The same argument which would prove it, would prove 
the divine nature of the Prophets and Apostles." The whole 
sermon conveys the sentiment, that Christ was no more than the 
prophets and apostles. And is it true, that we have precisely the 
same kind of evidence, to prove them truly divine, as we have to 
prove Christ truly divine ? Is there any thing like the following 
said in the Scriptures, ' In the beginning were the prophets and 
apostles, and the prophets and apostles were with God, and the 
prophets and apostles were God ? The prophets and apostles 
shall be called Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us °l 
We (the apostles) are Alpha and Omega . . . which were, which 
are, and w r hich are to come, the Almighty ? We are the brightness 
of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person ? ' Is it 
ever said of the apostles, 'All things were made by them, and with- 
out them was not any thing made that was made. They were 
before all things, having neither beginning of days nor end of life ? ' 
Could the apostles encourage their surviving brethren, by saying ; 
' Lo, we are with you always, even to the end of the world, — where- 
ever ye meet in our name, there will we be in the midst of you ? ' 
Could they say, 4 We know the Father, even as we are known of 
him, and he that hath seen us, hath seen the Father ? ' Could they 
pray, ' O Father, glorify thou us, with the glory which we had with 
thee before the world was ? ' Would it be proper to baptize 1 in the 
name of the Father, and of the prophets, and of the Holy Ghost ? ' 
Are the prophets or apostles called the root and the offspring of 
David ? Are they ever represented as the object of religious 
homage and praise in heaven ? Has it ever been revealed that all 
the host of heaven bow down, and render ascriptions of honor, and 
majesty, and power, and glory, to him that sitteth upon the throne, 
and to the prophets and apostles ? Such questions might be mul- 
tiplied almost indefinitely, but these will be sufficient to make us 
shrink from the idea of associating the prophets and the apostles 
with Him, by whom all things were made, and by whom all things 
consist. But Christ is thus associated with the Father and is re- 
ceiving with him the honor of all in heaven. 



41 



Mr. W.'s other objection to the doctrine of two natures in Christ 
is, that it makes Christ a deceiver. His argument is derived from 
the following text. 

" ' Of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in 
h°aven, neithei the Son but the Father.' If he was very God, he did know, for 
God must know all things. And if he did know, he uttered a deliberate falsehood ; 
and intentionally deceived the disciples." 

But this, and the like passages, instead of disproving the doctrine 
of two natures in Christ, render this doctrine necessary, in order 
that these passages may be rendered consistent with the other class 
of numerous texts, which represent him as equal with the Father, 
and as knowing all things. There is no falsehood, on our ground, 
in Christ's saying, that the Father is greater than J, and that he did 
not krow the day, &ic. For there is a sense, in which, the Father 
was greater than he, and in which, he did not know the time al- 
luded to. But taking Mr. W . on his own ground, the difficulty is 
still greater. For if he make Christ merely a man, and rank him 
with the apostles, we see not how he can exonerate him from the 
charge of deception. For, as man, he could not know the Father 
as the Father knew him — as man, he could not know all men — 
could not be a searcher of the hearts and a trier of the reins — 
could not be the root and offspring of David ; and yet all these 
things and many more, he positively affirms of himself, which could 
not be true of him, if he were only a man. Moreover, Mr. W.'s 
position makes the other sacred writers deceivers, for they affirm 
that Christ knew all things — that he made all things — that he is 
God, which cannot be true, if he is a mere man. His own argu- 
ment, in which he is so very positive, brings him into this dilemma. 
If he is determined to have but one nature in Christ, he may take 
either side, and say, Christ is not divine, because he said, he did 
not know the day, alluded to, and that the Father was greater than 
he ; or he may say he was not human, because he said, and the 
sacred writers said of him, he did know all things, was equal with 
God, that he made all things, Sic. " He, must," to use his own 
words, " do" both "to be consistent in his reasoning, or he must 
admit" two natures, which alone will harmonize both these classes 
of texts. " He has his choice." If Christ be not truly and properly 
divine, no consistent explanation can be given of those numerous 
passages which represent him as possessing divine attributes. If 
he be not also man, none can be given of those which speak of his 
subordination to the Father, and of his assuming the form of a ser- 
vant. But if both characters are allowed to be united in one com- 
plex person, all the passages harmonize with each other. If we 
are asked " whose son is he ?" We can answer, the son of David. 
If we are further asked, " how then doth David in spirit call him 
Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right 
hand, till I make thine enemies thy footsool ? If David then call 
6 



42 



him Lord, how is he his son ?" We can answer, He is the root 
of David. He is Jehovah, who existed before David, to whom 
that monarch owed his elevation, and whom he acknowledged as 
his sovereign Lord. 

Now, it is in place here to ask the question, which has often 
been asked, " Shall we admit one class of texts, and exclude the 
other ? Because the Bible proves him to be man, shall we infer 
that he cannot also be God ? Will you deny his divinity, because 
you cannot see how it can be so connected with human nature, as 
to constitute one complex person ? With equal reason might you 
deny that Abraham had a soul, and that he had a body ; for you 
find things said of him, which cannot be said of his body, and also 
which cannot be said of his soul. Abraham believed God; but 
his body did not believe, it was his soul. Abraham died ; but his 
soul did not die, it was only his body. And yet we say of the 
same person, both that he believed, and he died. Hence we 
conclude, that Abraham was a complex person, consisting of 
body and soul, and that these were so connected as to form but 
one person. But we have no more conception how the body and 
soul of man are united, than we have how the divine nature is 
united to human, in the person of Christ. And to disbelieve this 
union, because we cannot see how it is formed, is just as unrea- 
sonable, as to disbelieve the union between the body and soul, 
because we cannot see how that is formed." Allowing then, as 
we think every candid reader of the Bible must, that there are 
many passages which represent Christ as being with the Father 
before the world was, as possessing divine attributes, and as the 
object of equal honors ; and also that there are many other passa- 
ges which represent him as man, as sent of the Father, and as 
inferior to him, What shall we do ? I repeat the question, shall 
we admit one class and exclude the other ? Or shall we weigh 
them in a balance, and take the one which preponderates ? On 
this ground we should, I apprehend, be obliged to admit his di- 
vinity, and reject his humanity. But this will not answer for those, 
who receive the Bible as the inspired volume of God. " Since 
the facts of Scripture are to be received on the simple ground of 
divine testimony, and according to this testimony, Christ is truly 
man and truly God, we are bound to believe both these facts. 
Admit these, and the difficulty arising from the opposite classes of 
texts, that have been referred to, — a difficulty which has been a 
stumbling block to so many, is at once removed. Some things 
are said of Christ, which are true only of his human nature, and 
some things, which are true only of his divine nature. So that in 
truth we may say, that he was born in Bethlehem, and yet was 
without beginning of days ; that he grew in body and mind, and 
yet is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever ; that he knew not 
the day of the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet knew all things ; 



43 



that the Father was greater than he ; and yet that he was not 
chargeable with robbery in claiming equality with God. Had the 
Pharisees this view of Christ, they could have answered his ques- 
tion with ease and correctness, how the Messiah was both the son 
and the Lord of David. And without this view, we see not, how 
any satisfactory answer can ever be given to this question."* Are 
any still inclined to ask, How this can be ? An answer has already 
been given, in the following words. " Facts themselves are all 
that it concerns us to know. The manner in which things can be, 
is not important to us ; and is indeed unknown, even in respect to 
the most common phenomena of nature. f Facts we have now 
given you, on the authority of the divine word. If you ask, Mow 
Christ could be God and man ? We answer with Paul, God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; God was manifest in 
the flesh. Nor is what Paul asserts any more than John has told 
us, when he says, that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
us. The same apostle too has told us of assertions which the Sa- 
viour himself made, that amount to the same thing. Whoever, 
said Jesus to Philip, when he had asked to see the Father, whoever 
hath seen me hath seen the Father. And again, J am in the Fa- 
ther, and the Father in me. This is enough for the humble Chris- 
tian, who receives the Scriptures as the word of God, and the only 
rule of his faith and practice. "J Any objection, therefore, that 
may be offered arising from its incomprehensibility, we shall not 
deem within our province to answer. For we believe that the 
manner, in which the natures human and divine are united, does 
not come within the limits of human investigation. " The fact 
is all we need to know ; and the fact we ought as Christians to 

* See Sermon from Matt. xxii. 42, by Rev. B. Emerson. 

t Who can explain the connexion between the act of the will, and a motion of the hand ? 
Who can say how a seed, deposited in the ground, sprouts, rises to the light, blossoms, and 
brings forth a fruit fit for the service of man ? Who can tell why the soil of the same garden, 
warmed by the same sun, and moistened by the same showers, should produce the sugar of 
the cane, the acid of the lemon, and the deadly poison of the hemlock ? The whole volume 
of nature is full of such instances, in which the difficulty both in kind and degree is precisely 
the same, as in the doctrine under discussion. And shall an instance of this difficulty in the 
volume of revelation make us skeptics and unbelievers, when we cannot move a step in the 
volume of nature, without finding them before us, and behind us, on our right band and on 
our left ? We believe the facts, notwithstanding the difficulty, in the one case, and why shall 
we not do the same in the other ? To reject them, would be a. course equally unphilosophical 
and unreasonable. The facts in each case, are of no difficult comprehension, but the man- 
ner in which these facts can exist, consistently with each other, and the relations they sustain 
to each other, and to other objects, are alike impenetrable. It is important in this connexion 
to observe, that because we do not know every thing which belongs to a subject, it does not 
follow that the knowledge we have of it, is on that account, less certain or less valuable. 
What we do not know of a subject can never affect the certainty or importance of what we 
do know. What we do know of the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the two natures of Christ, 
can never be affected, as to its certainty or importance, by anything which we do not under- 
stand, any more than the certainty and value of the navigator's skill in nautical science, can 
be affected by his ignorance of the construction of the sun which he uses in his observations, 
or of the chemical composition of the water by which he is supported. Though by searching 
we cannot find out God to perfection, yet this does not diminish the truth or importance of 
what he has plainly revealed to us concerning himself. 

X Stuart's Sermon, from Matt, xviii. 20, 



44 



believe, and we must believe, if we pay implicit deference to the 
authority of the Bible. "* 

We are aware that a hundred questions may be asked on this, 
as on almost all other subjects, which our limited minds could not 
answer. Bur with us, who cannot " by searching find out God," 
the question is not, whether the divinity can be veiled in humanity, 
or how the union is effected, but simply, what is the testimony of 
God in regard to the fact? The question can never be settled 
by measuring every passage by what one man may consider 
absurd, for another does not see the absurdity ; or by assuming 
in our premises, or asserting in our conclusions, the main thing 
in dispute. 

Were these considerations kept in mind, the limits of the con- 
troversy would be very much narrowed, and every humble inquirer 
would be able to settle it for himself, by a reference to the plain 
declarations of the Holy Scriptures. These declarations^ we are 
fully persuaded, represent Christ as both God and man. Shall 
we receive their explicit testimony, without any glosses, or altering 
of translation, and admit that Jesus Christ is both divine and oil- 
man ? Or shall we admit his humanity and reject his divinity, (the 
many passages of Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding,) be- 
cause our limited minds cannot comprehend the mysterious union 
between them ? 

An able writer says, " It argues both pride and ignorance for 
men to refuse to believe what God, who only knows himself, has 
been pleased to declare to us concerning his own nature, merely 
because our narrow minds cannot comprehend the full meaning of 
it. I desire humbly and contentedly to take God's word, and to 
believe whatever he tells me to be true, though 1 am not able to 
conceive every thing about it." 

Adopting then the words of the sermon under review, we may 
say with emphasis, " The question is now put to your consciences. 
On this infinitely important subject, are you disposed to receive the 
plain, current, unembarrassed doctrine of revelation ?" " Are you 
willing to believe that" the Word was God ; — that the Word be- 
came flesh and dwelt among men ; — that God was manifest in the 
flesh; — that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life, — over 
all, God blessed forever ? 

" Will you make the holy Scriptures the standard of your faith and the rule of 
your conduct ? And will you study them in connexion, and compare passage with 
passage, and exercise your common sense in their interpretation, so as to obtain 
their true meaning? Or will you form a system of belief, from detached verses, and 
obscure expressions, and human inferences, and party explanations ? You have 
your choice." 

We will add, will you study the Scriptures with humility, and 
with constant prayer for the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit ? 
Every one who is wise, will read with the deepest solicitude to 

* Stuart's Sermon, from Matt, xviii. 20. 



45 



know and obey the truth, for there is a vast personal responsibility, 
which infinitely outweighs all party considerations^ The question 
in dispate is one which lays hold on eternity. It concerns the ob- 
ject of our religious worship, is essentially connected with all the 
other precious truths of the gospel, and with our hopes as immortal 
creatures. For, says Christ, Whosoever shall deny me before men, 
him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 

The examination of Mr. Whitman's sermon is now finished.* 
For much of the substance of the preceding pages, no claim is 
made to originality. On a subject which has been so often, and ably 
discussed, the writer's principal aim has been an adaptation of the 
arguments, which he has long regarded as valid, to the sermon 
under review. What I have written, I have not written in the 
spirit of controversy. Notwithstanding the provocations con- 
tained in the sermon, I have endeavored to avoid all disrespectful 
language, and reproachful epithets. And though he has accused 
the great majority of the Christian Church, in this and other lands, 
of denying Christ, and though it appears to me that the difference 
between the two systems is heaven-wide ; yet, I will not pronounce 
the judgments of God. To his own Master he stands or falls. He 
is my fellow mortal, and we are to meet each other at another day 
at the bar of Him whose character is in question. It will then be 
decided, whether I am guilty of too highly exalting him, or he, of 
robbing him of his glory. 

To all, into whose hands this pamphlet may fall, the writer would 
say, — you are called, by every consideration of duty and personal 
interest, to examine impartially, and prayerfully, the holy Scrip- 
tures. All your interests as immortal beings are involved in the 
question relative to the character, and worship, of the Saviour. 
The present excitement will soon be over, the passions of the day 
will soon subside, and our final destiny will soon be fixed by refer- 

* Some readers will, doubtless, think that a review was altogether unnecessary. The 
writer himself, on first reading the sermon, thought the same, and only wished that it might 
be read and compared with the Scriptures, which he supposed would be sufficient to expose 
its sophistry, and its unfounded, though very positive assertions. It was, probably, with the 
same impression, that au early notice of the sermon, and extracts, were given in the Recorder 
& Telegraph. As it takes bolder and more exclusive ground, and has gone so much further 
in its spirit of denunciation, than heretofore good policy would permit, it was supposed that 
Unitarians themselves, in their fulness of charity, would hardly be prepared to join with the 
author in denouncing, without hesitation, all Trinitarians, (including the most pious and 
learned men of all countries and ages,) as either ignorant, or as wilful deniers of the Lord 
Jesus. But as Unitarians have commended the sermon in their public journals, and circulated 
it extensively among their people, the reviewer thought it proper to notice some of the argu- 
ments, which they have thus approved, and upon which, of course, they depend for the sup- 
port of their system. 

It is but a little while, since Unitarians, were very desirous to conceal all difference between 
the two systems of belief. Much was said about " christian righteousness or external moral- 
ity, as the grand and sole object of all preaching, and the only evidence by which we are per- 
mitted to form our judgments of the characters of each other. It was then, no matter what a 
man believed, for " the exercise of christian charity was of more importance than all faith ;" 
but now, in showing who will be denied by Christ before his Father in heaven, unless indeed 
they are pardoned on the ground of ignorance, Mr. W. says, they are those who believe 
" Christ is God, or that he is equal with God, or worship him as God." Such are now, 
whatever their characters in other respects, accused of 'joining with the blasphemous Jews in 
denying the Lord Jesus.' This sermon is, therefore; rather a new developement of the spirit 
of Unitarianism ; and as such, should be known. 



46 



ence to the sacred volume which is now, plain to him that under- 
standeth, and right to them that find knowledge. With deep and 
solemn impressions, remember the inspired passage, " Unto them 
which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the 
same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and 
a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being 
disobedient." 

Consider the question in debate, as too solemn and momentous 
in its bearings upon your own soul, to be hastily decided by pri- 
vate attachments or antipathies, by party spirit or prejudice, and 
with a mind open to receive whatever eternal wisdom shall com- 
municate, repair to the infallible word of God, and Beware, lest 
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after 
Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily. 



NOTE. 

REMARKS ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMON BIBLE. 

" The truths of the gospel have always had their enemies. Those enemies at the present 
day are very numerous. The heart searching and sou) humbling truths of the gospel are the 
uuceasnig object of attack. Every art is employed, every species of sophistry is resorted to, 
and every prejudice is taken advantage of, to drive those hated doctrines out of the world. 

That the doctrines of grace are taught in our common Bible, if the language is to be un- 
derstood according to its plainest and most obvious sense, cannot be denied. Hence, the 
enemies of those doctrines have employed and continue to employ, with the utmost industry, 
all iheir talents and learning, in endeavoring to explain away that obvious sense, and to 
make men believe it cannot be the true sense. Volumes of learned criticism have been 
written, rules of interpretation have been contrived, supposed analogies of faith have been 
traced out, and multiiudes of metaphysical objections have been raised ; and all to do away, 
by notes and comments, the plain, obvious meaning of scripture language. But all this labor 
fails of accomplishing its object. For, although many are bewildered and led away from the 
simplicity of the gospel, yet many also will still resort to the Bible lor instruction, and will 
receive its plain obvious testimony, on the authority of God alone. They will sit down as 
learners at the feet of Jesus, and joyfully receive the word at his blessed mouth. They will 
believe God rather than man. 

Finding it impossible to persuade those who have confidence in the Bible to reject the 
doctrines it teaches, the enemies of truth are now making use, I believe extensively, of 
another artifice. Theij deny the correctness of the Bible itself. They well know, that if 
they can succeed in destroying the confidence of the public at large in the correctness of 
the common Bible, the chief obstacle will be removed. If the old Bible, which teaches 
the hated doctrines, can be destroyed, and a new Bible can be introduced, which does not 
teach them, the object will be gained. 

To destroy the public confidence in the common Bible, various representations are em- 
ployed, some in regard to the correctness of the translation, and some in regard to the cor- 
rectness of the original text from which the translation was made. And when these repre- 
sentations are made to those who have not the means of information on these points, they are 
often exceedingly well adapted to shake their confidence in both. 

Now, such assertions are easily made ; and it is extremely difficult for those who are not 
acquainted with the subject, to furnish a contradiction, or give any satisfactory explanation. 

One thing at least is certain. Where all the manuscripts agree, and there is no various 
reading at all, that reading must be the true one. If, therefore, any man wishes to alter the 
text tor the sake of getting rid of any of the doctrines of grace, it is incumbent on him to 
show, that, according to the best authority, from a comparison of all the manuscripts and an- 
cient versions, all the texts which teach that doctrine ought to be excluded. If one text re- 
mains, which teaches that doctrine, the doctrine itself is supported, even if all but one should 



47 



be rejected. But this cannot be done ; and the enemies of truth well know that it cannot be 
done. They cannot even produce one copy, whether more or less ancient, whether f.'erived 
from a more or less credible source, from which all the texts which teach any one of the 
doctrines of grace are left out. For instance, the Soeinians wish to prevent the Bible from 
teaching the divinity of Christ. But in order to do it, they ought to produce sufficient 
authority for rejecting from the original text all the passages which teach it. It would not 
be sufficient for them to produce authority for rejecting halt of them, or nine-tenths of them, 
or even all but one. If one single text, of undisputed authority, like John, i. 1, should re- 
main, it would sufficiently establish that doctrine. It is utterly in vain, then, for them to 
reject 1 John, v. 7, and to alter two or three other passages, and to produce some show of 
authority for so doing. Though, from a careful attention to all the evidence I have been able 
to find, on both sides, I am fully convinced that those passages are correct, as they stood in 
the original text from which our common Bible was translated. It would be utterly in vain, 
if they could prove that fifty passages which teach this doctrine ought to be rejected from the 
text, "whilst more than two hundred would remain which teach the same doctrine. 

A most careful aud critical examination was made, a tew years ago. of all the maauscripts 
and printed editions of the Hebrew Bible that could be found, by Kennicott and De Rossi. 
The former examined by himself and others about 700, and the latter about 500. Every va- 
riation was taken down, even in the mode of spelling the same words, or in pointing and ac- 
centing the same letters, or in the shape and size of the letters. The result of this immense 
labor has been a full conviction that there is no necessity for altering that printed text of the 
Hebrew B'bles from which our common Bible was translated. Some editions have been 
printed with a selection of the various readings in the margin, containing all that it was 
thought any one would deem important. Such a one I have possessed for sixteen years, and 
have been in the habit of examining by it those passages which teach the disputed doctrines. 
And I have never yet found a single proof text of any one of those doctrines at all affected by 
any of those variations, if their authority were admitted. 

iMacknight closes a very full account of the manner in w hich the received text of the Greek 
New Testament was settled, in the following words : 

" From the manner in which the text of the Greek New Testament in common use, was 
ascertained, every attentive reader must be sensible, that the learned men who employed 
themselves in that important work used the greatest diligence, fidelity, and critical skill. 
And as they were many in number, and of different sentiments with respect to the contro- 
verted doctrines of Christianity, no reading could be admitted from pi ejudice, or any par- 
ticular bias, but every thing was determined agreeably to the authority of the greatest num- 
ber of the most ancient and best manuscripts.*' 

It is worthy of note, that Macknight says this in the year 1795, which was twenty years 
after Griesbach's Testament was first published ; whose alteration he is therefore by no 
means disposed to admit. 

But if all Griesbach's alterations had been admitted, and all other alterations should be 
made in the original text which any learned man would venture to say were supported by 
any authority worthy of credit, what would be the consequence ? The evidence of no fact 
would be destroyed, no duty would be altered, no doctrine would be shaken. There are 
passages enough, in which all the copies of the original agree, passages enough which can- 
not be disputed by any, which inculcate the same duties, and which teach the same doctrines, 
as those do which are disputed. The enemies of truth are well aware of this ; and therefore 
their last resort is, to find fault with the translation, and propose " Improved Versions." 

Some new translations ha ye been made by men of learning aud talents, men of competent 
skill in the Greek language, but men whose enmity to the truth has appeared at every step. 
They have done what they could, in order to make the scriptures speak a different sense 
from that which appears in our common Bible. But after all they have done, they have not 
been satisfied with their own labors in this way ; and finding that the words they were obli- 
ged to use, if understood in their plain obvious sense, would still teach the hated doctrines, 
they have added notes and comments, to contradict them or explain them away. I have 
heard of other translations, made by men notoriously incompetent, whose only knowledge of 
the Greek language was acquired, according to their own account, in a few months. These, 
for aught I know, if their authors were only bold and daring enough, and sufficiently regard- 
less of their reputation, may have been so made as to leave out the doctrines of the gospel 
entirely. When a translator takes such liberties with the sacred text, he can reduce it to 
almost any shape he pleases. But this is as much as we can expect, when a man goes about 
the work of translation, with his mind made up, as Priestley's was when he said " that it is 
better to suppose the evangelists did not rightly recollect what our Lord said to them, than to 
suppose he claimed any existence before he was born of Mary."' When such men undertake 
a translation of the Bible, we have no reason to be surprised if they do violence to the sacred 
text, rather than suffer it to teach a doctrine they dislike. 

With regard to the dependence which those who know none but the English language can 
place upon our common Bible, I would observe a fewthings. I believe they may safely place 
entire dependence upon it, as the pure word of God. And 1 will give some of the reasons 
why I believe so. It is now more than eighteen years since I commenced the study of the 
Greek language ; and during that lime, there have been but few intervals in which I have 
not been in the habit of reading it more or less almost every day. And though I do not deem 
myself by any means master of the language, yet it must appear probable that the Greek 
Testament is tolerably familiar to me. And from all that I have been able to learn about it 



48 



during that time, I see no need of any new translation. There are places, indeed, in which 

I obtain some additional ideas from reading the original , but none in which those ideas are 
essentially different; I believe the translation contained in our common bible is a far better 
one, and much more conformable to the meaning of the original, than any that have been 
intended to supplant u, or than any that would be likely to be made at this dav. 1 have also 
the translation in the German language, in the Low Dutch, and in the French, and two diffe- 
rent Latin versions, all made trom the original, independently of each other ; all of which I 
consult occasionally, but have never yet discovered any essential difference among any of 
them. 

tsut a fact of much more importance, and one that is well known, is, that the Bible Socie- 
ties throughout the world choose our common Bible as the only copy to be circulated in the 
English language. This fact alone should be sufficient to s'atisty every doubt as to its cor- 
rectness. The Bible Society is confined to no sect or denomination. It has belonging to it 
the most pious and learned men of the age — the very men who are the best judges of its accu- 
racy— the very men to whom we must look for a new translation, if one were to be made. 
These men are every day giving us the most decided testimony that no new one is necessary, 
by using all their efforts to circulate the old throughout the world, wherever the English lan- 
guage is known, and that too, " without note or comment." 

There is one other consideration. The common translation was made under circumstances 
more favorable to its accuracy than any other translation has been made since, circumstances 
that forbid the supposition that any considerable defects can exist in it. The following ex- 
tracts are undisputed and authentic history : 

" Fifty-four learned men were appointed to this office by the King. (James.) as appears 
by his le'tler to the archbishop, dated 1604; which being three years before the translation 
was entered upon, it is probable seven of them were either dead, "or had declined the task ; 
since Fuller's list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who being ranged under six di- 
visions entered upon their province in 1607." 

The following were some ot the instructions given them : 

" Every member of each division to take the chapters assigned for the whole company ; 
and after having gone through the version. and corrections, all the division were to meet, 
examine their respective performances, and come to a resolution which parts of them should 
stand. 

" When any division had finished a book in this manner, they were to transmit it to the 
rest to be further considered. 

" If any of the respective divisions shall doubt or dissent on the review of the book trans- 
mitted, they were to mark the places, and send back the reasons of their disagreement : If 
they happen to differ about the amendments, the dispute was to be referred to a general com- 
mittee, consisting of the best distinguished persons drawn out of each division. 

' W hen any place is remarkably obscure, letters were to be directed bv authority to the 
mo-! learned persons in the universities, or country, for their judgment upon the text. 

" Three or four of the most eminent divines in each of the universities, though not of the 
number of the translators, were to be assigned by the vice chancellor, to consult with other 
heads of houses for reviewing the whole translation.'' 

Of the manner in which each company proceeded in examining the translation made by 
each member, we have an account in the following extract : 

" The judicious Selden, speaking of the Bible, says, " The English translation of the Bible 
is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best. The transla- 
tors in Kin*: James' time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him 
who was most excellent in such a tongue, and then they met together, and one read the 
translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of" the learned tongues, or 
French, Spanish. Italian. Sec. If they found any fault, the} spoke ; if not, he read on." 

" Almost three \ears, it seems, was spent in this S' rvice. At the end thereof, the whole 
work being finished, and thr^e copies of the whole Bible being sent to London, one from 
Cambridge, a second from Oxford, and a third from Westminster, a new choice was to be 
made of two out of each coinp uiy. to review the whole work and polish it. and extract one 
out of all the three copies, to be committed to die press. In three quarters of a year they 
fulfilled their task. Last of all Dr. Andrews, Dr. Bilson. and Dr. iMyles Smith, again re- 
viewed the whole work, and prefixed arguments to the several becks." 

From the above extracts, it appears to me abundantly evident that a translation made with 
so much care is not likely to be essentially defective ; and that we have every reason to con- 
fide in the judgment and honest} of those pious and learned members of the Bible Societies, 
who circulate it without note or comment, and recommend it to all classes as the pure word 
of God. 

On the w hole, therefore, I cannot but think the course taken by the Unitarians in Germany is 
the least laborious to themselves, as well as the most open and magnanimous. It is that of 
admitting that the writers of thf Bible did believe and teach the doctrines of grace ; and then 
seeking to get rid of their authority by denying their inspiration. Would all the enemies of 
truth take this course, the controversy between them and its friends would be reduced to a 
verv small compass ; and those who' should be d>posed to have any Bible wouid be left in 
the undisturbed enjoyment of the cue tney now possess." — Christian Repository. 




i 









£J|^E— -SIX. 













